Talk:Great Famine of 1876–1878

Possible ENSO connection?

Beginning around September 1876 and lasting until around September 1878, an exceptionally strong El Niño event, perhaps similar to both the current event and the 1997-98 event, was underway ― according to IRI Kaplan reconstructions (animation here), perhaps halfway between 1997-98 and 2015-16 as far as Niño 3.4 (but with warmer 1+2 than 2015-16) anomalies are concerned.

El Niño events are well-known in India for causing monsoon failures, especially in the southwestern part of the country, by displacing the Maritime Continent warm pool eastward and inducing sinking air from Indonesia westward. I wonder if the effect of this event on India was similar to 1887-89, 1899-1900 in this regard. 2602:306:BCA6:8300:51F5:29B9:FC61:963 (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That may well be the case. Very likely, in fact. However, on Wikipedia, we can only mention something if there is a reliable secondary source stating it. Some famines such as Doji bara famine and Agra famine of 1837–38 have such sources. If you know of other sources, which clearly mention the 1877-78 El Nino event in the context of the 1876-78 famine (or vice-versa), or any other famine in British India in the context of an El Niño event, please post here, or if you feel confident, make an edit on the famine's WP page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Late Victorian Holocausts by Prof Mike Davis

You shouldn't really use this source, especially not in the intro.

He calls it a genocide because he cited 'The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act' which supposedly made it an imprisonable offence to give food to the poor. Unfortunately, it's not true. It's a Swiftian satire. The 'Act' is signed in 'Inhumanville'.

He's accepted he's fallen for a Victorian spoof and has promised to change it if the book is reprinted.

A genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group" and it's hard to claim it's deliberate if this Act isn't true.

This in no way excuses the British for believing that the solution was laissez faire grain trade, nor Disraeli for not insisting on action from London. And it's certainly true, as Davis claims, that the Moghuls and Qing Chinese generally dealt with El-Niño famine much more effectively.

But it can't be called a genocide if the Act wasn't true, and perhaps this should be rewritten.

Ganpati23 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You're entitled to your personal opinion, and I noted the objections of Niall Ferguson in the lead. This does not change the fact that Late Victorian Holocausts is an award-winning history whose conclusions have been seconded by major genocide scholars (see annotations in article).-GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Putting back grammar errors

Fowler&fowler, you putting back grammar errors is clear vandalism. You could have easily added the native states or improved the accuracy or undone that part of my edits, but instead chose to undo my entire work for spite. That is not helpful, that is clear vandalism (when you put grammar errors back into the article). (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

@Highpeaks35: Your edits betray the fact that you don't the difference between British India and the British Raj. Please tell us what grammatical errors are in the article right here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, you claiming ignorance of diffs is becoming a nuisance. Look at the diff here. The comma was missing, there was an extra space causing an error, and missing periods, etc. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

Sorry those are not grammatical errors, only ones of layout. You, however, did add a grammatical error, but replacing "came into Bangalore" with "came to Bangalore." That is because you don't know the history. The famine stricken people came into the British garrison town of Bangalore from the surrounding Wodeyar ruled Mysore princely state. There was no famine relief in the princely state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

How about that spacing error? Also, I fixed that. Only thing you needed to do was to fix it yourself or ask me. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

 Done

You should have stayed away from fiddling with British Raj, British India, etc. You can't fix a layout error in the midst of introducing major new content related errors. No one will selectively revert your edits. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, most do, you don't. Since you enjoy trolling, being spiteful, and pushing your racist-Eurocentric POV. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC))

Also, Highpeaks35, you need to be more transparent in your edit summaries; contrast them with my edit summaries. Mine are always clear and comprehensive. Please don't just write "trim," "fix," "tweak" (your favorite); "expand", "reduce," etc. Tell us exactly what you have done in your edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I just realized that "came into" could not have been my choice of words, and found the edit in which it was introduced, along with its subsection. I will soon change it to: "streamed into," "surged into," "marched into," or perhaps the more neutral "journeyed to." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Plagiarism in cited source.

Highpeaks35 has been edit warring again, attempting to put in a shabby source The source is: Bimal Kanti Paul (2012). "Indian Famines: 1707-1943". In William A. Dando (ed.). Food and Famine in the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO. pp. 39–57. ISBN 978-1-59884-730-7.. In Highpeaks35's version, however, the source is: William A. Dando (2012). Food and Famine in the 21st Century. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-1-59884-730-7., which is incorrect, which doesn't mention the name of the author, only the editor. However, the sad thing about the source (which was published in 2012) is that its section on the Great Famine of 1876–1878 has been copied almost verbatim from this famine article, which I wrote in 2008. Obviously, it cannot go into this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, if you truly believe someone copied your work, than file an action/complaint with Google Books, Publisher and/or court. I will bet you will not. You are dishonest, provided zero evidence the author of this book copied from you. That is a big claim coming from an individual who edits Wiki with a racist-Eurocentric POV. What credentials do you have besides editing Wiki before I was in middle school? Again, support your claim that the author copied you by filing action/complaint with Google Books, publishers, courts; again, you will not, since you promote a racist-Eurocentric POV pusher who is heavily dishonest. Go ahead and call me and my work "Hindu garbage" as you did before. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

Fowler&fowler, also, I pointed out WP:STATUSQUO. I did not put this there. It was there for a long time. Again with your dishonesty. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 You made no mention of status quo in your first edit, preferring instead to teach me history and shout "racist, Eurocentric" from the Wikipedia rooftops. I'm not someone who gets worked up about these things, but note I do get worked up about shabby sources. Will post the plagiarism bit on WT:INDIA. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35 Posted on WT:INDIA. See here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC) Updated with permalink. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

undue

@GPRamirez5: Wikipedia guides require secondary sources, preferably scholarly peer-reviewed ones, for reliability, and they recommend tertiary sources for determining due weight. See:

• WP:SECONDARY: Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.

• Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

  Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

Here are some tertiary sources which have chapters on famines in 19th century India, written by Tim Dyson,Tirthankar Roy and David Fieldhouse, all three of whom have spent their careers studying various aspects of 19th century India:

• Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8
• Roy, Tirthankar (2006), The Economic History of India 1857-1947, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-568430-8
• Roy, Tirthankar (2012), Natural Disasters and Indian History: Oxford India Short Introductions, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-807537-0
• Fieldhouse, David (1996), "For Richer, for Poorer?", in Marshall, P. J. (ed.), The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 400, pp. 108–146, ISBN 0-521-00254-0

Please tell me where these scholarly disagreements are mentioned? Your edit summaries seem to be conflating reliability and due weight. Please self-revert. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Please also tell me what Wikipedia guidelines recommends two sentence sections? Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler , there is no litmus test for a tertiary source discussion in that policy. Quality secondary sources repeatedly take up this subject, including those by some of the leading public intellectuals in the world. Obviously that's notable. This academic article is devoted to covering the debate between Davis and Ferguson, if you really need proof.

And there is nothing I see in your sources that settles the controversy. Your own Tim Dyson, for one, affirms many of Davis' assertions.GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: As I have Dyson's book here on my desk, please tell me what assertions of Davis does Dyson affirm and how they relate to the assertions in the Scholarly Disagreements section. And the Romanian Journal of English Studies? Would you like to have an RfC at the History Project, the WP:INDIA or the Village Pump about its notability for a famine article? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: Please also tell me why the two sentences which are about mortality, require a separate section, and should not be part of the mortality statistics in the previous section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Fowler&fowler, I know Dyson is verifiable, that's why I put a link in the frickin' posting. You need me to quote you the passage?

Like many Britsh officials, Lytton was affected by ideas attributed to Adam Smith and other classical economists and largely as a result he was dogmatically opposed to intervention in the grain market...their consequences were great. Food grain was exported from India to Britain throughout the famine. And Lytton brought in the pliant Richard Temple—who had been accused of profligacy in his handling of the 1873-1874 crisis—to ensure that the relief measures provided in Madras Presidency were miserly in the extreme.

Page 136, paragraph 4.GPRamirez5 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: All this is already there in the article, in much greater detail than your blurb. Please read sections 2 and 3. I was asking about the scholarly disagreement section. Where does Dyson say anything about it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that you not randomly tamper with the lead without reading the rest of the article, or randomly created new sections to give prominence to whatever it is you consider notable. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

May I ask you to cease the snide insinuations? There's nothing random in my version of the lead, as your own favored tertiary source found British policy notable enough to spend well over a page on it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Re: Your recent threat in the edit summary: I welcome neutral input and have applied for a Third Opinion.GPRamirez5 (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I hope you told the folks at Third Opinion that what you consider a threat was my edit summary: "Reverted good faith edit by GPRammirez5: I'm sorry I don't see the need for the subsections; the article has been in this stable state for 12 years; please establish consensus on the talk page; also summarize what is in the body of the article not bring in an entirely new reference; if you persist I will request intervention." Suggesting that I will request admin help is considered a threat? Also I hope you also told them, that to an article which has had high quality academic sources such as these for 12 years, you had added a two-sentence section titled "Scholarly disagreements" that had littlle to do with the scholars already cited in the article, except one, but seemingly more with dropping names, and with slapping the label of "genocide," without semantic depth, in a conspicuous place in the article.

I am the author not just of this article but of most Indian famine articles, including: Chalisa famine, Doji bara famine, Agra famine of 1837–38, Upper Doab famine of 1860–61, Orissa famine of 1866, Rajputana famine of 1869, Bihar famine of 1873–74, Indian famine of 1896–97, Indian famine of 1899–1900, William Robert Cornish, and Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (1765 to 1947). This is not to assert ownership, but to state that all these articles have been written with great care. It doesn't help that someone comes along and seems determined only to see edit in print, without any thought to the overall coherence or cohesion of the text. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

RFC on British policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article include the following text under the heading “Scholarly debate”—

’’Some scholars hold that the famine was the product of Malthusian and laissez faire economic policies instituted by British officials, particularly Lord Lytton. In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis called the famine a "colonial genocide" perpetrated by Great Britain. Some, including Niall Ferguson, dispute this judgement, while others, including Adam Jones, affirm it.

GPRamirez5 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Support

Support Outside of the WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies of the previous editors, I can't account for why this isn't already in the article. The debate has even been noted in the popular press, for instance, in The Boston Review. GPRamirez5 (talk) 23:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. I thought you had asked for a third opinion. What happened? You seem to be operating by not cluing me into what you are doing. Now you've started an RfC, also without any previous discussion on the talk page. Not only are you not following the cardinal rule of an RfC, which says, Statement should be neutral and brief, but you are casting aspersions in your support statement, when you say in the RfC statement, "Outside of the WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies of the previous editors, I can't account for why this isn't already in the article. The debate has even been noted in the popular press, for instance, in The Boston Review."

You are not accurately describing the issue in the RfC statement. The issue was a new one-sentence section with title "Scholarly disagreement" (and with entire content = "In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis called the famine a "colonial genocide" perpetrated by Great Britain. Some, including Niall Ferguson, dispute this judgement, while others, including Adam Jones, affirm it.[22][23]" (see here) and with edit summary, "One of the pre-eminent genocide scholars and an award winning book are damn notable." The disagreement was about whether this kind of sentence (which seems to only drop names without giving us the arguments put forward in the disagreement) deserves its own section, especially when it follows the mortality estimates in which the discussion is scholarly. Now you seemed to have changed the sentence we had disagreed about and also what about it we had disagreed about. Very perplexing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The Third Opinion expired without a volunteer. The guidelines say the RFC question must be neutrally worded, which it is.GPRamirez5 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

It is inaccurately worded. You say nothing about the one-sentence section. The title of that disputed section was: "Scholarly disagreements," not "Scholarly debate." Moreover, you've added the bit about Lytton, thereby padding it into two sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:51, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Fowler, do not mischaracterize me or rewrite your own history on this page. You did not merely reject the material as a full section, you also rejected it as a subsection. You have rejected it in every form in which is was offered.GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I rejected it because by that time you were edit warring and using my sources in a helter-skelter, come-what-may, ad hoc, fashion to somehow get your genocide blurb in. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think the RFC to be premature but will comment in some details. [Placeholder].∯WBG^converse 07:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support but perhaps add some of the references Fowler&fowler has below, I see no problem with the book and the writers expertise. Using the word genocide appears to be a minority, but not a fringe view to me for this famine. Therefore it can be included, paying attention to the WP:DUE weight of the opposing position (expanding this more) --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: The dispute here, whose formulation itself seems to be on shifting lexical sands, has precisely to do with due weight— with whether "Scholarly disagreements" deserves a separate one or two sentence section, which merely involves the naming of names involving "genocide," but nothing else. The rest of the sources are in the section above it. That section also contains the contributions of authors much more notable in the historiography of South Asia and of this famine, than the three gentlemen of the disagreement. The article has a style, in place for 12 years, of not by and large mentioning authors by name, only the substance of their argument. We have here the opposite, only names, only a mention of the argument, but without its content. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

PS As you can see, even in a simple Google count (it is more lopsided in scholarly sources), the sources that mention "genocide" constitute approximately 1/6 of the total number of sources. In such a situation, it is incumbent for us to say, "A minority view casts the famine to be a genocide on the grounds that ..." That I'm happy to do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

PPS On Google scholar, of the 140 articles that reference the famine, only 6 mention genocide.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

And under more appropriate search terms, Google scholar returns dozens of citations mentioning genocide.GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC) Also, only a handful of articles have been published since 2015, and the majority of them seem to mention Mike Davis.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: There 34 articles on the famine since 2015 and only 4 mention a genocide. You have to be careful in your search, as there was a famine in 1876 in China as well. And why are we picking 2015? Mike Davis's book was published in 2002. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

PS And among 26 books published by academic publishers on the famine there is one that mentions "genocide.". Mention of "genocide" is clearly a minority view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So the current wording is not under dispute, simply whether there is a section header for it? You both agree to keep the text in? Why dont you just expand the text to give the other side its weight, a compromise without the heading? This talk page is confusing and this RfC could deal with WP:REFACTORING. I support it being included, but also scholarship stating that it is not thought to be a genocide having a bit more text. --[E.3][chat2][me] 13:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@E.3: I haven't agreed to keep the verbatim text in, but I've agreed (see very bottom of the oppose section) to revise the article fairly, to keep the blurb in for now, and see where the chips fall as the sources create a more complex picture of the famine. The problem with GPRamirez is that he appears here randomly, is hung up on "genocide" appearing in the article. I doubt that he has any interest in the famine. I wrote this article 12 years ago. He never appeared before. I've asked him several times to tell me why these guys consider the famine a genocide or why they don't but he has never engaged me. It would have been better if I had not reverted him and just matter of factly expanded the article a few weeks later. (No egos would have been bruised.) Also pinging @Winged Blades of Godric:  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I was and am accepting of it as a sub-section, as a compromise. There is nothing in the RFC about additional sentences one way or the other, although I don't see any need for more than one or two.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

There you have it. Mention of "genocide" reflected in 4 Google Scholar articles of the 34 published since 2015, and one scholarly book out of 26 (published by academic publishers) is being requested in its own sub-section of one or two sentences. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Please read more carefully, User:Fowler&fowler. I mean no more than one or two additional sentences should be considered to be added to the RFC text in the future.GPRamirez5 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

So, a new subsection of three or four sentences, consisting of dropping names, assiduously avoiding any mention of the arguments associated with the names, and liberally sprinkling "genocide" a few times. That would be in the highest traditions of encyclopedia writing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

• Fowler&fowler:According to the OED, a genocide is "The deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group." The OED's examples of usage are:

OED examples

1944 R. Lemkin Axis Rule in Occupied Europe ix. 79 By ‘genocide’ we mean the destruction of a nation or of an ethnic group. 1945 Sunday Times 21 Oct. 7 The United Nations' indictment of the 24 Nazi leaders has brought a new word into the language—genocide. It occurs in Count 3, where it is stated that all the defendants ‘conducted deliberate and systematic genocide—namely, the extermination of racial and national groups...’ 1951 Amer. Jrnl. Psychiatry Feb. 595/1 Genocide as defined by the United Nations is the direct physical destruction of another racial or national group. Furthermore, the OED defines "extermination" to be: "total extirpation; utter destruction."

• My interlocutor has not explained (according to the disagreeing scholars) which racial or ethnic or national group was directly, systematically, physically, and utterly destroyed in the Great Famine? Or what their response is to the argument: It struck far beyond the confines of ethnicity, nation, or race? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
• My interlocutor has not explained how these scholars' views contrast with the recent historiography of India, which I am quoting from on account of not being available online, and which I am making extensive in order to use it to revise the article when this RfC is over. This historiography, on balance, does apportion blame to British policy but does not consider the deaths to be direct, systematic, or planned.

Fowler&fowler's more detailed arguments and sources

Examples abound: Much of India’s environment (and many of its people) remained beyond British technology to control. Official forest conservation and irrigation projects clearly had only mixed results. Occasional cyclones, ​​​weak monsoons, regional and multiregional famines, ​​and ​epidemics (like the 1918–19 Spanish influenza)​ highlighted the limitations and often detrimental effects of the Raj. (Fisher, Michael H.. An Environmental History of India (New Approaches to Asian History) (p. 138). Cambridge University Press. 2018) Or: Many of the Raj’s efforts to master the Indian environment, and its policies, had consequences unintended or opposite to its claims. ​​Railway, forest, and irrigation departments transformed the economy, but often benefited Britain while causing major ecological damage and distorting the Indian economy and society. British laissez faire famine policies led to millions of deaths (Davis 2002). Indians, and some Britons ​and Europeans (including Karl Marx) criticized the evident discrepancy between the government’s often incompetent and brutal behavior versus its claims of conquest over nature and protection of public interests through British-driven “modernization.” (Fisher, Michael H.. An Environmental History of India (New Approaches to Asian History) (p. 138). Cambridge University Press. 2018)"Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Or that most deaths occurred from disease: Turning to mortality, in 1875 and most of 1876 the death rate in the worst affected districts of Madras remained fairly low. However, it then rose sharply in two successive peaks. The first was in January 1877. Cholera was the chief cause of death during this peak, although other diseases (e.g. dysentery, diarrhoea) doubtless contributed too. In large part, this peak reflected the crowding of huge numbers of starving individuals in the terrible conditions which prevailed in relief camps and other places where people massed (e.g. around towns). The second peak in deaths coincided with the resumption of the monsoon rains during the second half of 1877. Again, several diseases, including pneumonia, probably played a part.25 However, most deaths were attributed to 'fever', and it is likely that malaria played a major role. (Dyson, Tim. A Population History of India, page 136, Oxford University Press, 2018) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Or that it was a policy failure, that the British created the 1880 Famine Commission, which described Famine Codes that are still in slightly amended form used by international agencies. "The 1876–78 famine represented a massive policy failure. That such a disaster, involving millions of deaths, had occurred in British-ruled India became known around the world. There were international efforts to raise famine relief funds. The disaster greatly strengthened the position of nationalists like Naoroji and Dutt. And it can even be said to have informed the establishment of the Indian National Congress in 1885.” The crisis also fuelled the arguments of British critics of colonial rule. There is no doubt that the government in Calcutta was concerned that no such disaster should happen again. Indeed, the Famine Commission's remit was 'to collect with the utmost care all information which may assist future administrators in the task of limiting the range or mitigating the intensity of these calamities'.” ... The Famine Commission Report proposed 'Famine Codes' to help government Officers foresee the threat of famine and deliver relief if one occurred. The core of the codes involved establishing large-scale public relief works (e.g. building roads). These works were to be organized at a reasonable distance from people's homes, and they were to provide employment at a subsistence cash wage. It was expected that the demand for food arising from these cash payments would be met by private traders. Also, so-called 'gratuitous' relief was to be made available to people who were unable to work (e.g. the very old). As proposed, the codes represented a systematization of matters of famine relief with the aim of providing timely action. ... (p 138) Dreze argues that the promulgation of the Famine Codes was an important—but not decisive—step towards famine prevention in India. Of course, it was one thing to have the codes, another thing for them to be applied. Nevertheless, versions of the codes were adopted in most provinces. (pp 137-138)" (Dyson, as above) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:18, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Or what role "limited information and knowledge" played in occurrence of 19th century famines in India: "(From the Abstract) Were the Indian famines natural (geographical) or manmade (political) in origin? I review the theories of Indian famines and suggest that a mainly geographical account diminishes the role of the state in the occurrence and retreat of famines, whereas a mainly political account overstates that role. I stress a third factor, knowledge, and suggest that limited information and knowledge constrained state capacity to act during the nineteenth century famines. As statistical information and scientific knowledge improved, and prediction of and response to famines improved, famines became rarer." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Or why migration out of the famine districts and province to other less famine-prone provinces of British India such as Burma, was encouraged if the object of the policy was genocide: "Labour migrations during the Great Famine of 1876 -78 were phenomenally high across the provinces. Burma probably received moderately increased supplies of labour from the usual recruiting fields in the Northern Circars, but the famine districts were uninfluenced. It was useless trying to make Burma attractive to the poor — the liberal offers made by authorities to induce large or systematic immigration from Madras into Burma were futile. The populations of the Ceded districts did not take part in the across-sea migration.54 At the beginning of March 1877, the chief commissioner of British Burma addressed the government of India. He proposed that for the benefit of that province, and at the same time to afford relief to famine-stricken districts of the Madras presidency, immediate encouragement should be given to the migration of labourers from the Northern Circars districts to British Burma. This could be done by introducing a system of advances. The Government of India approved the proposal and a grant of nineteen lakhs of rupees was sanctioned to meet the expense of making advances to the migrants in question." Or why socioeconomic status among Indians and caste played an important role in who survived the famine (if the object was genocide): "In his work on famine in Darfur, Alex de Waal suggested that personal habits and cultural factors determined the likelihood of death to a much greater extent than poverty.2 In Madras, however, socioeconomic indicators were indeed accurate predictors of who died during the famine. The great majority of Alexander Porter's 'sample' were agricultural labourers from the Pariah and Palli castes, as well as several weavers and potters.12 Landownership and caste — both strong predictors and indices of social and economic status in nineteenth-century Madras —greatly determined the chances of life or death during the famine of 1876-78. This is corroborated by data from the census of 1881. " My interlocutor's sources are unreliable. (I am the primary editor not just of this article but of most Indian famine articles, including: Chalisa famine, Doji bara famine, Agra famine of 1837–38, Upper Doab famine of 1860–61, Orissa famine of 1866, Rajputana famine of 1869, Bihar famine of 1873–74, Indian famine of 1896–97, Indian famine of 1899–1900, William Robert Cornish, and Timeline of major famines in India during British rule (1765 to 1947). But I've never heard of the authors cited above in the field of Indian famine studies, nor is their training anything to do with Indian history. They are more likely some kind of "genocide generalists," well-known in that field no doubt.p) One of them, Adam Jones, says in the pages cited: "India was largely free of famine under the Mogul emperors, but British administrators refused to follow the Mogul example of laying in sufficient emergency grain stocks. When famine struck, they imposed free-market policies that were nothing more than a "mask for colonial genocide " according to Davis." But there were numerous famines, and suffering from them, during Mughal rule. For evidence of famines, and Mughal charity, see: "Humayun died just seven months later, however, leaving two sons; Akbar, the elder, was only thirteen. ​​In addition to the disorder and uncertainty inherent in this succession, north India was wracked by a major famine. (p 96) ... Jahangir (r. 1605–27), Shah Jahan​ (r. 1628–58), and Aurangzeb ʿAlamgir​ (r. 1658–1707) each fought his way to the throne. Then each reshaped Akbar’s institutions, often overstretching the empire’s technology and weakening bonds among its components. Even as imperial expenditures rose, resistance by regional rulers and local communities periodically reduced revenues. Global climate changes​ brought periodic El Niño​ events, so droughts ​compounded famines​​ caused by imperial policies and regional wars. (p 102) ... Despite the vast treasury he inherited – about 150 percent of the empire’s total annual income – Jahangir’s expenses far exceeded his revenues. Further, his reign was punctuated by strong El Niño​ events and consequent severe droughts​ and famines​​ (1614–16, 1623–24), plus outbreaks of bubonic plague​​ (1619).... The succession war had devastated much of north India, compounded by El Niño​ events which led to droughts​ and then famines​​ in much of India (1660–62). In response, ʿAlamgir officially suspended or abolished some taxes. Further, he performed his charitable obligation as sovereign by increasing food distribution from imperial alms houses. This temporarily aided his exceptionally needy subjects, but his regime did not invest in infrastructure for long-term improvements in their condition. ... The (Mughal) empire had always needed perpetual conquests to capture enemy treasuries and gain productive territories. This income paid for its armies that enabled that expansion and for its administration that collected the revenues. But over ʿAlamgir’s final two decades, the costs of empire came to outweigh the benefits for many mansabdars and subjects. Strong El Niño​ events compounded famines​​ (1685–88) caused by the seemingly endless wars. Neither the imperial center, nor its armies, nor its administration had the policies, technology or manpower to control resources over such a vast territorial expanse and array of regionally based rulers and communities. (page 111)" My interlocutor has not responded to my criticism that the characterization of Indian famines as genocides is WP:UNDUE and goes unmentioned in the textbooks of history of India, and that according to WP:TERTIARY, "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. One of the most widely read textbooks worldwide on Indian history is Burton Stein's A History of India. It devotes a number of pages on the famines of British India. It does not spare the British, but it describes the circumstances, policies, and earlier history that led to the famines, rather than using inaccurate, blanket, and charged words such as genocide: "The theory that the scourge of nearly half a century was caused by poor monsoons – acts of nature for which neither the state nor any human agency was responsible – was believed for a time. However, the virtual elimination of mass famine deaths for most of the twentieth century, when recorded climate data have not been different, makes such a fatalistic explanation unacceptable. The terrible recurrences of sustained food scarcity resulted in part from the rapid commercialization of the agrarian economy beginning in the 1860s. Contributions to the disasters came from the cotton ‘boom’, the development of a national market linked through the railways and the more exacting contractual arrangements for moving food and other commodities regardless of social costs. The impact of these changes on a large and very poor rural population meant that even minor dislocations in food supply could lead to severe mortality unless interventions were made. ... Though the Famine Code was an important commitment by the imperial state, Victorian imperial officials only grudgingly matched this responsibility with programmes that might alleviate poverty and change a backward agriculture." Another textbook, widely read internationally, Peter Robb's, A History of India, Macmillan, 2011, which hardly spares the British, makes the point, that the picture is more complicated, "In every famine of British India these tensions were evident. Ideology — for example, the fear that interfering with the 'normal course' of trade would do more harm than good — was a severe drag on policy, and probably cost millions of lives between the 186os and 1901. Ultimately, however, those who advocated intervention won the argument, at first saying that the laws of political economy should give way to urgent necessity, and then suggesting that the laws required modification. ... Ultimately, however, those who advocated intervention won the argument. ... the result was additional pressure to modernize the administration ... The result was additional pressure to modernize the administration, to modify the law, and to intervene and invest in Indian society. The two major types of state intervention were the economic and the 'scientific'. Public works — especially roads, bridges, railways and canals — and the communication services (printing, post and telegraph, and later radio and television) represented the most concentrated efforts made under state sponsorship, with education, medical and scientific services (geology, cartography, archaeology, meteorology, agriculture, and so on) developing more patchily. State expenditure on public works rose from around £200 000 in 1840 to £30 500 000 in 1901." Another, Michael Mann, in South Asia's Modern History, Routledge, 2014, describes the British efforts at amelioration, which did not always go as planned, but again had both good and ill-effects: "Technical challenges were often linked to performance of politicians, administrators and engineers who were of the opinion that only the British colonial power was capable of such feats and they were, as the technology itself, evidence of superior civilisation. Each section of the British canals required the efficient use of thousands of workers along the construction route. On the Ganges Canal, for example, one engineer was responsible for the organisation in daily work columns of up to 5,000 men, women and children in addition to hundreds of oxen carts. Alongside the recruitment of workers was also the logistical task of the procurement of construction materials. The logistical and organisational structures were borrowed from the PWD’s experience in work assignments during famine, when thousands of people were employed in famine relief works. Many canal and railway embankment projects, as well as other projects of public utility, were created during such times of desperation and indigence. 123 However, the intensive irrigation did not bring only benefits. As already mentioned in Chapter 4 , intense irrigation and inadequate drainage led to waterlogging and salinisation."

• My interlocutor is in effect not letting me revise this page (with the modern, and more relevant, sources I have at my disposal) by continuously locking the page in a "dispute" whether in a "Third Opinion" or "RfC", and never discussing them with me ahead of time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler's references
References

You're helping to make my point that there is a scholarly debate here, Fowler. Some of your new sources, especially Tirthankar Roy, explicitly take note of Davis' school of thought, thereby demonstrating its notability.GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The RfC, for me, is not about whether there were ill-effects of British policy (they are already in the article, and will be even more so after the revision), or whether Davis's work should be noted (it already is noted in the article), but whether the famine was ever a "genocide," a 20th century neologism for a planned, direct, total, evisceration of a nation, ethnic group, or race, or whether Davis's characterization of it as "genocide," is of due weight in the historiography of Indian famines. None of the sources I've looked at (outside of the genocide generalists) ever make that point, even remotely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@GPRamirez5: Seriously though this RfC is a waste of time. The Wikipedia community trusts me enough to let me write all the history sections of the FA India, which is monitored by hundreds of people for every-which-POV, as well as a host of other India-related articles (especially British India-related articles). Allow me to expand the article. Trust me, I will do a fair job. I will, moreover, let your famine blurb remain in the article for now at the end of the mortality section, but not in a subsection. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added image

Per WP:BRD, coming here to discuss with Fowler&fowler and anyone else. I'm confused by your reversion - how is the image not NPOV? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: What text in the lead—to which you had made the addition—does the image illustrate? Images in WP are supposed to be contextual, i.e. they are meant to add some illustration of the text which accompanies it. Your image is just one of the hundreds of images of emaciated victims of the famine that are available in the archives. There are already several in the article. Adding your image anywhere in the article, let alone in the lead (please read WP:Lead fixation), would violate WP:DUE. Over the years dozens of editors have attempted to add such images, including very likely yours. All such efforts have proved to be of little avail because an encyclopedia article needs to have a strictly balanced account both in text and in illustration of a sad human tragedy. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

PS @Ganesha811: This postscript does not address your question, but is in the nature of general remarks. Many Indian famine articles have been plagiarized in books published by publishers that are considered reliable. (See here) In other words, they must have some mature enough encyclopedic information in order to be worthy of such misappropriation. Mature articles (i.e. ones whose content has stabilized) have generally been vetted for DUE. See also Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Please scroll down to the pictures at the bottom of that page. There are several by Hooper. By the time of the Great Famine, many British newspapers had begun to show interest in the region (which had recently become an Empire upon the crowing of Queen Victoria as Empress of India) and had sent correspondents and illustrators there. Adding images simply because the famine was prolifically documented unfairly slants the Great famine to be the standout Indian tragedy. But the Doji bara famine famine or the Great Bengal famine of 1770 were very likely much worse but with little documentation. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:30, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, to be honest, I’m not very convinced by your arguments. The lead image should illustrate the article as a whole, and a striking image of famine victims is fitting for an article on a devastating famine. Having 3-4 images of famine victims in a decent-length article does not seem unduly weighted towards anything, other than that there was a famine, which is beyond dispute. Regarding your second comment, it seems to be that other famine articles are not well-illustrated or documented, so it would make the British look bad to have another photograph on this one? That does not seem sufficient reason to keep from improving this article. If anything, it is an argument for improving the others, whether by addition of prose or images where available. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The lead is a summary of the article. The lead image illustrates the lead. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, and this image fails to illustrate the lead how? I don’t think you’ve explained how this is not NPOV, as you claimed in your initial revert. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:17, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Again, MOS:Lead says: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." WP:IG says, "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text (see MOS:IMAGELOCATION). Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article," and MOS:IMAGELOCATION says, "An image should generally be placed in the most relevant article section." In other words, the image in the lead should be relevant to the lead and placed near it. The lead mentions the following political dispensations or geographical locations: Provinces of British India, Princely states, "India under Crown Rule" = British Raj, Madras Presidency, Bombay Presidency, Kingdom of Mysore = "Mysore State," North-Western Provinces, Central Provinces, and Hyderabad State, among others. The famine occurred in the late 1870s; the accompanying map File:Pope1880BritishIndia1.jpg is from a famous textbook of 1880. All links above are shown on the map. Most people, for example, are quite clueless about what the North-Western Provinces were. How is a new reader supposed to make out anything about the famine if they don't know where it occurred. You image is just another way of shoehorning images in this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

There are several much more famous images than yours already in the article; they show with great artistry the plight of both humans and animals in the famine. You are in a long long line of drive-by editors (with no previous experience of writing anything on India-related topics, let alone Indian famine related topics) who want to stuff their favorite famine image in the article. I'm sorry you have done nothing but stuff an image, in the best traditions of WP:Lead fixation and offered no defense, only asked me, "Why?" "Why?" ... ad infinitum, ad nauseum. This is as far as I will go in explaining things. I am a busy editor who has created most famine-related content in British India Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I don't think I need a "defense" to improve the article - this is a collaborative project. I think the onus is on you to explain why my change is not an improvement. You don't own this article, but you are exhibiting some of the signs of thinking you do - see #s 1, 2, 6, and 8 on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, all of which you have stated or implied. I don't have a "favorite" famine image, nor am I a "drive-by editor" with an agenda - I'm just a regular editor looking to improve an article I am interested in. I'm glad to hear you're busy, but that doesn't make your preferred version of the article any better. This is not a FA which you shepherded, nor even a GA - it is a regular, unprotected Wikipedia article that anyone can edit. I believe that a general map of British India, which is not directly related to the famine, is a worse illustration for the lead section than an image of famine victims. Unless a consensus (of more than just you) decides otherwise, I'm going to reinstate the image change I made shortly. To address your concerns about overwhelming the article with images, I will remove one of the later images of famine victims where there are two close together. Ganesha811 (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you have not established a consensus. The boundaries of British India changed throughout the 18th and 19th centuries. So, a map of ca 1880 is very relevant to a famine of 1876–78. All the India famine articles have maps in the lead. They have been on Wikipedia for a dozen years; they have been implicitly referenced even in Tim Dyson's Population History of India. I do know a few things about India. I am the main author of the FA India, Wikipedia's oldest country featured article, soon to be 17 years old as an FA. See my million viewer award on my user page. I won't ping admins yet, but if you continue in this fashion, attempting to facilely play Wikilawyer with an experienced editor, I soon will. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:03, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I think we would benefit from a third opinion from an experienced editor, so please ping one. It is clear we are not seeing eye to eye and will have difficulty finding consensus with just the two of us. Again, your contributions to other articles are no doubt impressive, but they do not mean that your preferred version of this page is therefore better. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: It is not just other articles, but pretty much all India famine articles. See Timeline of major famines in India during British rule Of the 12 famines listed there, I've created and written 10 (all except the first and last). I've never seen you edit any of these articles. Your history gives no clue to showing an interest in any famine topics. Yet you feel completely entitled to changing the main image in an old article and are arguing with me about your right to do so. Anyway, I'm happy to ping a couple of experienced India editors: @Kautilya3: @RegentsPark: (he's an admin as well) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:00, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, well, it's been a few days and since neither Kautilya or RegentsPark have weighed in yet, I'm going to post this dispute at WP:3O for a third opinion. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: It has been a few days? Well, it has been three. Editors are busy, they need time to respond. The India famine articles have been around in WP for ten years; you for four years. You've never edited a famine-related article nor added a famine image during your four years. You are calling this a "content dispute" and in a mere three days, are calling for outside help. You have not given valid reasons for your edit that are based on content, only in WP rules. I strongly object to a third opinion at this stage. I am happy to ping more editors, but it is insulting to the editors I have pinged to be impatient and call for other opinions that are likely to be less knowledgeable than theirs. We should wait at least a couple of weeks. This is not an old enough dispute between two content editors, only a talk page campaign by a drive-by who is bristling that their edit of adding yet another image of starving victims (there are already five in the article), but this time to the lead has been reverted, and wants redemption to salve their bruised ego. There are many other options an RFC advertised at WT:INDIA, for example, where people with knowledge of Indian famines may weigh in. But this is nowhere near the time for it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, as WP:3O is a non-binding process, you are under no obligation to abide by the opinion of whoever comes along. Regardless of your low opinion of my expertise in this subject area, we are two editors in a content dispute, and so I thought it would be useful to follow one of the accepted avenues for conflict resolution. Please refrain from repeating your personal attacks on my character or editing style/history. You know as well as I do that this kind of one-on-one divisiveness is not why we are here. We are here to build an encyclopedia together, collaboratively. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: More facile Wikilawyering. If you have knowledge of the topic and want to collaborate, please tell me what the the Indian Famine Commission had to do with this famine, where it discussed a version of entitlements later publicized by Amartya Sen in his Nobel-prize-winning work, or what the ancestors of V. S. Naipaul, another Nobel-laureate, for example, had to do with the famine? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:05, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I don't believe I have anything to prove to you. In any case, I've posted a more detailed message on your talk page, but I'm going to disengage for 48 hours to give myself a chance to cool off and give others more time to weigh in. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute one way or another. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. We have not discussed content. It is a dispute about what you feel is your right as a Wikipedian, based in your interpretation of WP's rights (WP:Anyone can edit) but not the responsibilities (WP:DUE). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

3O The image showing the Indian map from 1880 is likely more encyclopedic than of random people afflicted by the famine. Of course, the shock value of the latter far exceeds that of the former. I don't see the image Ganesha811 added as being non-neutral though I favour Fowler&fowler's opinion that the 1880 India map conveys the context in the lead better to a lay reader, which (today) reads It affected south and Southwestern India—the British-administered presidencies of Madras and Bombay, and the princely states of Mysore and Hyderabad—for a period of two years. In 1877 famine came to affect regions northward, including parts of the Central Provinces and the North-Western Provinces, and a small area in the Punjab.[2] The famine ultimately affected an area of 670,000 square kilometres (257,000 sq mi) and caused distress to a population totalling 58,500,000. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 00:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Refocusing on content

Fowler&fowler, I'm back to discuss again. I'll try to keep the discussion focused on content, as you desire. Why do I think we should replace the map of British India with that image of famine victims? A few reasons. Firstly, it is more specific to this article. The map of British India might reasonably be put on any number of articles, while this image of famine victims is particular to this disaster. Secondly, it is a better illustration of the lead section and for the article as a whole. The map of British India is good for providing context - as such, it belongs with the background information, where I think it better serves the reader. The image of famine victims is related much more directly to the content of the lead section and the article as a whole. Lastly, why do I prefer that particular image over any other? I think it is more striking and of greater artistic merit. I understand this is subjective, and as I mentioned before, I am more than happy if we remove another image of famine victims later on in the article to address your concerns about "overstuffing" the article with images. Let me know what you think. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:49, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think that an image that focuses on the famine may be a better fit than a generic map of the Raj as the lead image (agnostic as to which image though Ganesha811's choice is rather striking). --RegentsPark (comment) 22:50, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
  • A picture like File:Colonel William Willoughby Hooper (British - Deserving objects of gratuitous relief - Google Art Project.jpg, titled "Deserving objects of gratuitous relief," a mock studio picture, its subjects artificially put together by picking the most emaciated famine victims in the relief camp and making them pose like a family, made by a roving British photographer for a well-heeled crowd in Great Britain that had just woken up to the travails of their Indian empire is the worst kind of picture for the lead. Books have been written about such 19th-century imperialist mis-documentation. As I've already explained, all my ten Indian famine articles have maps in the lead. The reason is very simple. Geography is the most accurate distinguishing information we have about these famines. In every famine for example, after the British became involved in the relief, more people died in the relief camps of cholera before the rains and malaria during and after, not from starvation, though enfeebled they undoubtedly were. If mortality and suffering are what we are attempting to represent, then why should we make a studio picture of starvation alone the picture of the famine?

And what if I agreed to the notion that the enfeebled victims are the best representatives, then what image do I put in the Doji bara famine, Chalisa famine, Agra famine of 1838–39, Upper Doab famine of 1860, Orissa famine of 1869, Bihar famine of 1874 (for all of which there are no photographs)? As for the later ones, there was only one major one in the 19th century, the Indian famine of 1896–97 (by which time the British relief efforts were better organized). But suppose for argument's sake, there had been a major famine every two years: Great famine of 1879-80, Great famine of 1881-82, Great famine of 1883-84, ... Would you have displays of suffering by roving British poverty tourists in every famine article's lead? How would these pictures distinguish one famine from the next? The maps, however, are indeed all different.

You @Ganesha811: have still not discussed content, only argued on general principles. The victims of the famine were not just humans, but a vast realm of animal life, in other words, the entire ecosystem. If I had to choose a picture, I would any day pick Harral's File:Bellary Zilla,Great Famine of 1876–78..jpg which shows the devastation all the way to the horizon not just to the humans and animals in the foreground.

The areas affected by the Great famine of 1876-78 in a famine map of India

So summing up: I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that 19th-century mock studio pictures, attempts at the documentation, are even remotely accurate to be representative. That is why I have opposed any such pictures in any of my famine articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

PS However, fifty years later, when awareness about India both in India itself and around the world had changed, pictures became more representative. In the Bengal famine of 1943, I made a great effort to find the picture in the lead File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (The Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg (from The Statesman', Calcutta, ... August 1943) of some dying children. That is because the women and children (who had been abandoned by the men in their lives) had made their way to the cities and begun to die on the sidewalks. It became an enduring image of the famine. Please also see the other pictures I have added on that page from Indian photographers that garnered some praise from Paul Greenough the author of the major book on the famine. In other words, when pictures became representative, I made an effort to find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

PPS Ganesha811 please also don't play the Wikipedia wiseguy game of putting my words in quotes as if they were somehow nonstandard; "overstuff" (to stuff to excess; to overfill) has a long history of use in the English language going back to the turn of the 18th century. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

PPPS This is beginning to look more and more like the game I'm used to seeing on this page. An entirely new editor, unknown to me, unknown to the broad topic of the page, appears on the page and changes an image. I revert the change. The drive-by editor begins to quote WP chapter and verse, all very politely, but with never any mention of any specifics, none at all. This goes on until I begin to lose my cool, and they then threaten to take me to ANI, or their encounter with me becomes fodder for those who do so later. The whole exercise is a trap, a bait. I'm making note of this here as a typical example. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:33, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

PPPPS Your argument, "The map of British India might reasonably be put on any number of articles," it false. British India changed drastically from 1783 (Chalisa famine) to 1876-78. If that is your main argument I am happy to add the more specific famine map. See above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, Lordy, I don't know what has convinced you my motives are so scurrilous, but I have not once yet threatened to take you to ANI or, as best I can tell, accused you of anything worse than ownership behavior. But that charge, frankly, is looking 100% accurate. They are not, as you say twice, "my famine articles." They are Wikipedia articles that belong to everyone. I agree that you have definitely lost your cool and I would encourage you to take a step back and look at the big picture - disengage and consider whether this dispute is worth your time and energy. I'm happy to wait a few more days and continue the discussion then if you would like. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Please don't worry about me. Please respond instead to my other concerns above, the mock pictures associated with late 19th century British imperialism, and my very specific famine map above. In other words, bag the Wikilawyering, while you carefully skirt around anything specific to the famine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Do you know who the people in your picture are? In your caption you had written, "A severely emaciated Madras family in their home during the famine," (here). In actual fact, they were famine wanderers who were detained in a relief camp. You can read all about Hooper's infamous picture in Aidan Forth's Barbed-wire imperialism, Britain's Empire of Camps 1876-1903, University of California Press, 2017 pages 49 to 51 There is no chance such a picture, mislabeled in the original (and not just by you) can represent the famine. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, I think the details you provide are both interesting and well-worth including in the article, beyond what is already written there. Maybe you could suggest a caption for the Hooper image that would put it in proper context as a lead image for the article? I also agree that the famine map you suggest is an improvement over the general map of British India and should replace the present map in the Background section. The Harral image you suggest is also interesting, but I think that an engraving is in general a less useful illustration than a photo. However, if you'd be amenable to making the Harral image the lead image, I'm happy to compromise, as it addresses my concerns about being specific to this article and directly relevant to the lead. Ganesha811 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The Harral image is an engraving of a photograph by Hooper. I have to run now, ... but I consider the engraving to be one of my most cherished possessions, capturing the slowly growing emptiness felt in a famine beginning long before humans begins to perish Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, RegentsPark, Murtaza.aliakbar: What do you think of the compromise proposed above (using the Harral engraving as the lead image)? Ganesha811 (talk) 19:37, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

That was not a compromise, really, just an indication of the feelings I have for the image. However, my personal attachment is no substitute for encyclopedicity. This image too is open to the same criticism, that Hooper rounded up some people and made them pose. It is very unlikely that he just happened upon that scene, that they remained frozen in that state of depletion in front of an Englishman (i.e. of the colonial ruling class) and his party (for Hooper would have needed translators), especially in those early days of photography when any movement would have blurred the photograph. A map remains the best option. As I've done in some other images in the leads of Indian famine articles, I am happy to more clearly demarcate the boundaries of the famine regions. I will do this sometime in the near future, and will base it on the Indian famine map File:FaminesMapOfIndia1800-1885.jpg. That is my best offer. The 3O seems to be in agreement with the map idea. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler, I agree that a map is probably the best image in the lead (the "where" in the story), just not a generic map of a much larger region. If you can create (or find) a map that shows the region (or regions) affected by the famine, then that would be perfect. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, if you are willing to create such a map, I agree that that would be an improvement over the current lead image. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

For now, in the absence of a better alternative that can be agreed upon, I'm going to put File:FaminesMapOfIndia1800-1885.jpg as the infobox image. I would still prefer an engraving, or even better, a photograph, but this is an improvement over the current map. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, no problem. I'm glad we were able to come to some kind of resolution on the content issue. Ganesha811 (talk) 03:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)