Jump to content

Talk:East India Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 173.32.141.8 (talk) at 04:21, 7 April 2009 (→Opium highly sought after by the Chinese ???). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleEast 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 25, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 24, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
February 17, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  1. established a trade transit point and a factory. When? 1608?
  2. 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?
  3. Its monopoly was curbed in 1694, but it was Deprived of its trade monopoly in 1813. Are these different monopolies?
  4. It therefore raised its own armed forces When?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. The Eastern British armies at home What does this mean? Were they in India or in the UK?
  9. 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.
  10. the King brought down the ministry What does this have to do with Burke's bill?
  11. with clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company What was the role of the Company after 1784?
  12. 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?
  13. In 1845, the Danish colony of Tranquebar was sold to Great Britain. What does this have to do with the Company?
  14. The Company had at various stages defeated China, occupied the Philippines and conquered Java. When did these happen?
  15. 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?
  16. The efforts of the company in administering India were the model for the civil service system in Britain. When?
  17. 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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
I can't give a reference, but I've always thought that the term Company Man was used to refer to employees of the EIC. Nowadays, Company Man seems to be used to refer to employees of the CIA.--ML5 (talk) 12:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get from my reading is that John Company was a synonym/metonym for the EIC rather than a separate entity.

Any idea how the alternate name arose? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ok, ok, you made your point.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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

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)

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

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)

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)[reply]

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.

Why does this article call it "Honourable" when all other articles in Wikipidea that mentions this company calls it "British"? Was it because while the British Empire outlawed opium trading in contemporary Britain, it still brought money to the Empire with such a trade? Or was it because it had the power to trigger two wars against a nation that opposed itself to opium importation? Are these the reasons why this article calls it "Honourable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.86.164 (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain as the British East India Company because that was its name to begin with. Open any history book like A History of the English Speaking Peoples and you would find that it was named the British East India Company. It also goes by that name in school and collage text books. To call it English or Honorable would be rewriting history based on a few peoples views. Wikipedia is about accurate and neutral information. - Mr.NorCal55 (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've reworded it so that we don't actually endorse Smith's view, although it still reads a little awkwardly. Mark1 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The 'British' is just for disambiguation (this was discussed in early 2004). Were there Welsh, Scots and Irish companies too? HenryFlower 13:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. HenryFlower 22:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. HenryFlower 19:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should remain as the British East India Company because that was its name to begin with. Open any history book like A History of the English Speaking Peoples and you would find that it was named the British East India Company. It also goes by that name in school and collage text books. To call it English or Honorable would be rewriting history based on a few peoples views. Wikipedia is about accurate and neutral information. - Mr.NorCal55 (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should remain the British East India Company. That's what it is. I've never in my life heard it as the 'Honourable', every textbook I've ever read calls it the British.162.84.175.237 (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, it isn't 'remain' it is 'move to' British East India Company. If you can provide sources and books that use British East India Company and propose a move (I'd recommend using the instructions at WP:RM, as they can do things you can't as an anon IP/newly registered, plus gets a good wide range of views) you might very well get it moved over. Narson (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fox's Bill

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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/news/?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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

You guys are the same old Brits! EIC taxed 80% of the food grains during famine and people died out of starvation. You ask the world to what extent EIC is to blame? Inhuman laughable stocks nothing more. 72.137.199.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]


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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.18.144.64 (talk)


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)[reply]

Check YOUR facts before you psot stupid comments. China was gorwing increasingly rich in silver and the only goods that could be FORCED onto China was opium. Hence the wars to force China to buy these products and drain her wealth.

-G

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Was that a logo used by the real East India Co. or was it just invented for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies? If it was only used by the movies I don't think it should be added to this article.Occasional Reader 20:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this EICo symbol. I think it is the one they used in Pirates of the Carribean. It is actually the symbol for the East India Trading Company. However, I do not know what the diffrence between East India Company and East India Trading Company is, if there is a diffrence. --Drew2794 (talk) 20:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was criticism section removed?

Why was it removed? We should add criticism section here.

~rAGU

Hey guys what happened. You are trying protray a company that screwed up millions of people a great company. at least state that they did this guys. Be reasonable.

~rAGU

Shame less Brits ~rAGU


I think we need to write in a seperate thread the truth about the esast india company. about the crime on the indians and other nations.

Bodhisattva2008

Slave trade and piracy

I removed the following comment from the text of this article. Trey56 08:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of slave trade and piracy activities of the EIC and its employees in the article . Has this been edited out or can one not find the references to it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_East_India_Company

In response: If someone actually wrote "There is no mention of slave trade and piracy activities of the EIC and its employees in the article . Has this been edited out or can one not find the references to it?" in the article itself, of course you should have taken it out, but you should not have removed any reference to slavery. And if that was in the discussion, you were past wrong to remove it. That was apparently the only reference in the entire article to the role that the EIC played in the so-called "triangle trade," and now there's nothing indicating that the EIC ever had anything to do with slavery. As embarrassing as it may seem now, it's not helping anyone who uses Wikipedia as reference material to pretend that what happened didn't happen. That needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marguerite de Navarre (talk • contribs) 03:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Would anyone (Xdamr?) actually care to defend the ridiculous, undiscussed move of this article to Honourable East India Company, which clearly violates all relevant naming policies? I've moved it back. john k 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is referred to by historians as the HEIC or honourable east india company. Perhaps we should call it the "Honourable East India Company (British)"?
The anon editor has it about right - HEIC etc is the typical formal name adopted by historians. It is certainly superior to 'British East India Company', an title which, though descriptive, is not remotely correct. Presumably it is intended to disambiguate from the VOC etc, in which case it should be [[East India Company {Britain/UK/whatever)]]. Having said all this, perhaps you'd like to explain why it is 'ridiculous', cite your policies, etc, etc?
Xdamrtalk 12:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is honorable a part of the official name of the company, or just a formal prefix? If it just a prefix, the title without "Honourable" is more reasonable. Is "HEIC" used only by British historians? I've read plenty of books that never use "HEIC" (including Britannica), and refer to the Company as "English East India Company" or "British East India Company". The British House of Commons is formally called The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled. That doesn't mean the article should be moved to The Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament Assembled.
Preliminary search suggests that "Honourable" was just a formal prefix. For instance, Britannica uses HEIC only at two places, and both of these mention "honourable" in lower case, suggesting that it was just a formal prefix. On the other hand, "British East India Company" is more common. utcursch | talk 04:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NAME says generally the more reconisable name is used among English speakers, and IMO without the Honourable is much more known than with it. GizzaChat © 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this might be a little controversial, I'll suggest filing a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Let's wait for one or two more days for people to provide any inputs, before filing a request. utcursch | talk 12:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have found other historical refs to it at British Library [7], national Maritime Museum [8] [9]. It might be fair to argue that the HEIC belongs at East India Company and the others shifted to the disambig. Then Honourable can be left as part of the article and as a redirect. GraemeLeggett 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for not taking part in this conversation when it was active, but now that I have noticed it, I must say that I disagree with this move. Why should this be under its full formal title when the Dutch, Danish, French, and Swedish East India Companies are all listed simply by their national adjective? If this is the "Honourable East India Company" (and I do agree with all those who said that Honourable is not essential to the name), then the Dutch EIC should be listed as "United East India Company" or "United East Indian Company" or "Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie". My personal vote is to revert it back to British East India Company or to English East India Company, in order to match the naming convention the other EICs observe. (Personally, I prefer English over British, because every text I've ever read on the subject has talked about "the English" and not "the British".) LordAmeth 22:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that should be borne in mind is that for the other 'East India Companies' we are dealing with translations from foreign languages. Personally I would far prefer to find the Dutch Company at Vereenigde Oostindische Compagnie than Dutch East India Company, and, as you observe, the most accurate translation would in fact be something along the lines of 'United East India Company'. These various 'East India Company' names are just quick verbal shorthand - why should we not refer to these by their actual names?
Xdamrtalk 14:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest the entire section be removed, per WP:TRIV and based on guidance in Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles.

The Star Wars section of the popular culture sections lacks sources and appears to be original research. Additional it doesn't seem notable to the EIC. (If sources could be cited it might be reasonable to see it included in one of the Star Wars articles).

And for the Pirates of the Caribean, the EIC may be important to the PotC movies, but the PotC movies don't seem important to the EIC.Occasional Reader 20:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and removed it. I doubt any established editor will question your argument. GizzaChat © 09:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"established editor" lordy lord... as time goes along, Wikipedia is being slowly polluted with the hubris of armchair academics, its funny to watch but a little sad. The above argument is idiotic. PotC is populist crap, no doubting that, however its populist crap that has introduced the EIC to millions upon millions of human beings that otherwise wouldn't know or care that the EIC existed. PotC is the very definition of popular culture and that's why wikipedia has a section for popular culture after all isn't it? I'll put it back for you...no need to trouble yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.37.23 (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military assets

Did the Company maintain its own military forces or were forces from the standing military just allocated to their command or were they all "soldiers of fortune"? Could the military forces of the Company be considered seperate from the standard army, navy, etc? Did they have their own uniforms?--TPrice180 17:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Late answer I know but the HEIC did indeed have its own private army, I came to this site hoping to find more info but was surprised to find little. I don't have sufficient knowledge to add an article on the main page but I do know that they wore similar uniforms to the regular army (red coats etc) and that they were separate from the regular military. They did fight alongside the regular army in India and came under the command of Sir Arthur Wellesley for a time. Their officers did not purchase their commissions like the regular army of the 18th/19th Century so they did not advance up the ranks quickly like their regular counterparts. Promotion for the officers was based on seniority only, effectively 'dead mans shoes'.Beyond this I have no more information. 82.34.55.108 mspice2215 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about stocks

I have no idea about the details here, but someone told me that "Falu Koppargruva" in Sweden was sold in "stocks" from the 1300s until about ten years ago when they closed down. If so, would that not be the first? DanielDemaret 12:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the introduction should be revised also- if you go to the "joint stock" page linked in the introduction, it mentions other earlier joint stock issues (hundreds of years before the HEIC's inception. The statement that the HEIC is the first joint stock company seems to be incorrect. Bradby 18:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Bradby[reply]

Undone move

I have undone the move to British East India Company for the various reasons given before by Xdamr, that HEIC was its official name, often called 'The Honourable Company'. There was no attempt to get consensus for such an obviously contentious move so, I undid it and await some attempt to gain a consensus for a move. Narson (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Historical error

Quote:

"By 1689, the Company was arguably a "nation" in the Indian mainland, independently administering the vast presidencies of Bengal, Madras and Bombay and possessing a formidable and intimidating military strength."

Firstly, the Company didn't even establish themselves in Bengal until 1690! They couldn't trade freely there until 1716. In 1689 the total size of Company administered areas in India came to a few square miles, and it would remain so until the 1750's! - indeed, the rest of the article spells this out. By 1689 they only had control of the relatively small settlements of Bombay, Madras and Surrat - which were very small places in the 17th century, and even then, they had only established themselves in Bombay some two decades before. The Company, at that time, had a few hundred men at arms in India - was this "formidable and intimidating military strength"?

I have deleted the lines for the reasons stated. It appears that the person that included those lines, knows nothing about Indian history - let alone the East India Company.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.216.20.70 (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East India Company- A Corrupt, Racist & Murderous Colonial Organisation-This article is written with British Point Of View

The English people presence in India for 250 plus years was solely driven by spirit of expoliting India economically to make their parent country England richer and prosperous and in turn generate income for hundred & thousand of British people who were part of the British rule and corrupt administration in India. They hated and racially discriminated Indian people because they found them primitive and darker in skin colour due to which they taxed them even at the point of starvation and allowed them to die in millions without any relief during floods and famines. Some development or reforms they brought about during their corrupt and murderous rule can't be cited to justify or glorify their endeavour to make India bankrupt, illiterate, partitioned on communal designs, poverty ridden and without little infrastructure at the point of their exit in 1947. Anyone who had raised voice against their corrupt & murderous rule was either jailed or killed with the help of corrupt judiciary.

Their presence was not driven by India building mission, if that was the case than why so much difference in the socio-economic conditions of India and Britain at the time of Independence. And for that matter even if they would had stayed in India after 1947 they would had created a underclass based on race & skin colour like the Aparthied regime of South Africa which had denied black Africans the basic human rights or the "Stolen Generation" in Australia where descendant's of British people even now treats it's indigenous black people as racial untouchables, after two centuries of discrimination, murder and exploitation. Britishers could not guarantee racial equality, equal opportunity and economic prosperity for million of Indians and used them as commodities for thier own benefit. In short their objective was met as they grew richer India became poorer. One of the best thing happened in the history of India was the demise of East India company and subsequently the Britsh rule in 1947.

"Where is the Truth -The article is full of lies we want to read the Neutral Point of view not some British crap!"--Himhifi 12:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not its subject nor for ill informed rants. Please refrain. Narson (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with Himhifi. The HEIC has a long history of exploitation in India. This article is written with a complete disregard for that facet of the company. Even the basic concept of a "company" conquering a nation is exploitative. Why is there no criticism of its actions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.153.73 (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article glorifies the company, though, might I suggest that 'Company Rule in India' (I think that is the article...it is linked to within this article) might be a better place to go into the HEIC's policies and their affect on the Indian population. The only issue I can see in coming up with will sourced critiques of their action is that their policies are generally accepted to have been completely callous but were not genocidal (Indians died mostly because the Company didn't give a damn whether they lived or died, not because the Company wanted them dead) Narson (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron#Accounting_scandal_of_2001 The Enron page is about the Company, Enron, but also includes criticism and controversy within the same page, as it is historically relevant. Why does this exclude the Honourable East India Company? There are criticisms; why are they not listend in this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.153.73 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to talk to the editors of the Enron article for information on that decision. As I said, there should be criticism, but it has to be sourced and any huge detail on it should, IMO, go into the company rule page. Having masses of detail in one article does not preclude having information in annother. Wikipedia is fun like that, you can edit it in, you just have to find reliable cites to back you up. If you need any help I can dig out some history books and recommend some reading. Narson (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Where is the Truth -The article is full of lies we want to read the Neutral Point of view not some British crap!"
"Why is there no criticism of its actions?"
"Why does this exclude the Honourable East India Company? There are criticisms; why are they not listend in this page?"
The above are criticisms made in previous contributions here. The answer: because nobody has (yet) written the critical information and related references. Wikipedia is written by anyone who wants to, not by an editorial authority. People have written what they knew about, from their viewpoint; if information is needed to correct the impression given, then it needs to be added, with supporting references. Any unsupported information, whichever way it's biased, is likely to be removed. Pol098 (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You talk about this being "British crap" and imply that you yourself think quite poorly of the Company. But is that pro-Chinese, pro-Indian, pro-whatever point of view not just as nationalistic, as biased, as the pro-British view you are railing against? Unlike as in the nationalistic agendas of China, and other nations, who vilify anyone and everyone who has ever come into conflict with them, and hold up the EIC as an example of the worst kind of evil, the Brits do not hold it up as something to be proud of, as a noble and wonderful thing they did, particularly when it comes to the more abusive, exploitative aspects of the EIC's operations. In short, the Brits don't love it as much as others hate it, and do not use it for nationalistic agendas. It does, nevertheless, however, remain a major element of the overall historical narrative of the Ages of Exploration and Discovery, not just for English schoolchildren, but throughout the West. LordAmeth (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (I've added a clarification to my previous contribution, above, as well as the response below since this was written Pol098 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you're referring to my comment, immediately above yours LordAmeth, the quoted sentences it starts with are quoted from previous entries in this section, and what follows is my reply to the effect that if people think an article is wrong they should attempt to put it right in a constructive way. I'll go back and add a comment to my note to clarify this. Pol098 (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East India Company regiment

Surprisingly little mention made of this private army, I had hoped to find some. Any one out there with enough knowledge to add something? mspice221582.34.55.108 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolved in 1874, bought in 2005?

On the one hand, the the article states that the company was dissolved in 1874; on the other the article, corroborated by a recent newspaper article, documents the original company being bought in 2005 by an Indian billionaire. Maybe somebody can fill in the gap? Pol098 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FACTS ABOUT THE EAST INDIAN COMPANY

ITS NOT CORRECT TO LEAVE AWAY THE FACTS ABOUT THE COMPANY SUCH AS:

-Battle of Plassey -Bengal famine of 1770 -Jallianwala Bagh massacre -british contrribution to poverty in india. -that the british rule costed ca. 70 million indian lives.

and a lote more...

THE CURRENT VERSION IS A BAISED ONE, AND I THIS IT SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN FAILS TO SHOW THE TRUTH: I HOPE THERE ARE MORE OUT THERE WHO THINK AS I DO:

Bodhisattva2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read the article before leaping to hysterical conclusions, you would have seen there is an article linked to called Company rule in India which details the company activities in India. You would also find a link to the Battle of Plasset on the page too. As for the Amritsar Massacre, please see the date of the dissolution of the HEIC and then the date of the massacre. You will find the first is decades before the second. Narson (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a recent and very good hour-long lecture giving an overview of the company - 'The Imperious Company: The East India Company and the Modern Multinational', by the historian, Nick Robbins: http://www.gresham.ac.uk/event.asp?PageId=45&EventId=756 I think that this would be a very nice link to give a narrative overview of the company (especially as it has MP3, MP4 and text versions available of the lecture to download for free). (I don't put this up directly, as there is a potential issue of conflict-of-interest as I am linked to Gresham College, but I will gladly put it up if people agree to the post.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesfranklingresham (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

Could the main of authors of this article please detail the reasons for choosing the "Honourable East India Company" for the page name? Sure, it was a formal name, but it is one that is today mostly used as a literary, sardonic, or satirical flourish, for example, as in the title of John Keay's book, The Honourable Company: A History of the English East India Company. Serious secondary sources (by an overwhelming margin) don't call it that; they simply call it the East India Company, or when disambiguation is a must, either the English East India Company or the British East India Company. See below.

  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: lead paragraph: "East India Company also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708) Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, or (1708–1873) United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, ..."
  • OED (requires subscription) entry, for "East India," which it obviously describes as obsolete except attributively: "East India": Obs. exc. attrib. Formerly used = (the) EAST INDIES. East India Company: a company formed for carrying on an East Indian trade, especially the English company incorporated in 1600, and described in its charter as ‘The Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies’, which from 1773 exercised political power in the East, and had the chief part in the administration of the affairs of Hindustan, till 1858, when the government was assumed by the Crown. (OED, June 2008, draft version)
  • Webster's Encyclopedia: "Main Entry: East India Co. Variant(s): or English East India Co· English chartered company formed for trade with E. and S.E. Asia and India, incorporated in 1600. It began as a monopolistic trading body, establishing early trading stations at Surat, ... In 1708 it merged with a rival and was renamed the United Co. of Merchants of England Trading to the E. Indies. Becoming involved in politics, it acted as the chief agent of British imperialism in India in the 18th-19th cent. ... See also Dutch E. India Co., French E. India Co.
  • Encarta Encyclopedia calls it the "English East India Company," while the "Encarta Dictionary" defines, "East India Company" as: "British company: a trading company established in England in 1600 to trade with the East Indies, and later with India, which it effectively governed for many years. Similar companies were also founded in the Netherlands and France."

Finally among all encyclopedias there are:

My recommendation is that this page be moved to "East India Company", with a "for other uses: see East India Company (disambiguation) link at the top; i.e. the current East India Company page would then be moved to East India Company (disambiguation). That would be the page name most in keeping with both scholarly and encyclopedic precedent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. 'Honorable' violates various naming rules (not the common name, an honorific). --Regents Park (count the magpies) 00:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is 'Honourable' but yes. I'm fine with that. Though obviously, the first paragraph should use both names as we do in any article about something with a formal name. Narson (talk) 10:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, all its names, including "Honourable East India Company," will still be there in the first paragraph. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I only stumbled over here recently via adding a source I'd stumbled across, but for what it's worth the article name struck me as not being what I was familiar with, and the above stats and rationale seems convincing, so I agree also. EverSince (talk) 23:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the editors who have responded here like to suggest what the next step should be in respect of the page name? It has been 19 days since I made my first post above. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next step

The ideal name is "East India Company". However, there is already a disamb page with that name and we'd have to usurp that page with a disamb redirect in the first line. Which, I worry, will upset the other East India Company editors! Should we take this proposal to the talk page of "East India Company" first? --Regents Park (count the magpies) 15:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good suggestion. Let's wait for the others to weigh in as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We could always use the WP:RM process. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not call it East India Company (English), which is the format often used when there are several articles that are disambiguated? There would then be no need to get any consensus from the disambiguation page editors. Also the question whether it should be "English" or "British" should be dealt with in notes in this article, not in the disambiguation article. Can we quickly decide and change?Vontrotta (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had to be away due to an emergency and had no internet access during the last month. No, "East India Company (English)" doesn't make sense, since in the dab page East India Company, the various companies are not referred to in that style; in other words, it is the French East India Company, not East India Company (French) etc. In keeping with RegentsPark's suggestion, I have now made a post on the dab talk page, Talk:East India Company. That page has had no posts since 2006, so I don't know if there will be a spirited discussion there. The next step would be to request a move per Narson's suggestion. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will request the move soon. I just read the instructions at WP:RM. We have to do a "multimove," in other words, first "East India Company"-->"East India Company (disambiguation)" (whose own redirect back to "East India Company" has to be undone), and then "Honourable East India Company"-->"East India Company." The discussion will take place on Talk:East India Company, since that move will have to be undertaken first. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"East India Trading Company"

The article presently opens:

The Honourable East India Company (HEIC), most commonly referred to as the East India Trading Company...

I have never heard it referred to by the latter name, let alone "most commonly referred to". The only instance when I have heard this usage is for the fictionalised company in the Pirates of the Caribbean series of films. I citation-tagged this on 24 July 2008 but the tag was removed by an anonymous user on 15 August. I'm removing the phrase "most commonly referred to as the EITC" from the opening paragraph. Opera hat (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I hadn't noticed that either. I have, however, again added "most commonly" to its most common name, "East India Company." (See section above.). I have also copy edited the lead paragraph. There are some inaccuracies in the second paragraph as well, which I will attend to later. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Blackborne

Robert Blackborne, who worked at the Admiralty, is described later in Samuel Pepys' diaries as Secretary of the East India Company. Does anyone know if this is correct? What was Blackborne's relationship to the East India Company? [10] Also wondering if he is connected to the London merchant Abraham Blackborne (I suspect he is, as the Blackborne family were later recipients of a large sum of money left to them by Will Hewer, Pepys' longtime friend and former servant). Thank you much for any info. Regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Robert Blackborne was the Admiralty Secretary in the 1650s (a position Pepys himself was to hold later) and Secretary of the London East India Company (the original company) from 1666 to 1702. Apparently, according to one author, he was also a Fifth Monarchist, which makes the year of his incumbency, 1666, interesting. The annus mirabilis was, of course, crucial in Newton's life as well, although Blackborne's connection with Newton is likely from a later time when Newton was Master of the Mint and East India Company was probably in debt. How Blackborne managed the transition to the Restoration is not clear ... Apparently he was a man of substance who led an eventful life:

From Justice Upon Petition: The House of Lords and the Reformation of Justice, 1621-1675 by James S. Hart. Routledge, 1991. ISBN 0049422022. "In an attempt to head off that judgement, the East India Company petitioned the House of Commons in mid-April 1668 ... In the meantime, the Lords had reached a final decision. On 29 April they awarded Skinner £5,000 in damages against the Company ... The Lords considered the petition 'scandalous' in both tone and content ... The house immediately ordered the author of the petition, Robert Blackborne, the company secretary, as well as a number of the company's officers to appear and explain themselves. As a result, Blackborne, Sir Samuel Barnardiston, Sir Andrew Riccard, Roland Wynne and Christopher Boone were all committed to the custody of Black Rod in lieu of £2,000 bail. (p. 196)"

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS Actually not sure about Newton's connection. Newton became Master of the Mint in 1700 ... both Blackborne and Pepys were still around but ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks for taking the time to post this very useful information as well as to explain Blackborne's connection to the Admiralty and to the original East India Company. Best regards,MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very welcome! I am always amazed at how scrupulously EIC records were kept. I hope we are doing half as good a job for our time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are so right. One has to wonder what happens if all the memory sticks, thumb drives and other technological paraphernalia short-circuit.... Thanks again for your help.MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, and interestingly, secretary of the East India Company Robert Blackborne's sister was the mother of MP Will Hewer, who formerly worked for Samuel Pepys at the Admiralty and with whom Samuel Pepys later resided after retirement. These early colonial folks certainly kept it all in the family!MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

This section degrades into an anti-British diatribe, attributing several atrocities to the EIC, but without citing any sources. It needs a cleanup or removal. Also, the discussion on this talk page should be archived as it is becoming unwieldy. Calydon (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this section should be changed dramatically. First, it is in the wrong order - the article should start with history and, to the extent is really adds something, an "impact" section could be added later. Second, many of the "facts" should actually be incorporated into the history section, with the appropriate citation for the fact. My inclination would be to delete the section and challenge the author to do the editing, but my experience in the past is that ends in a long dialogue without satisfactory result. I think the minimum first step is to change the location of this section and then to start cutting and pasting parts into the history section.Vontrotta (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support getting rid of the section. 'Impacts' makes little sense without a context and the economic and social consequences are best discussed in specific articles such as Company rule in India, Opium wars, or other articles which discuss historical periods or events where the Company played a role. The current 'impacts' section consists mostly of uncited 'facts' and I'm going to tag them for now while we wait for more input. --Regents Park (sink with my stocks) 14:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe that relevant verbiage has been deleted. If it does not belong here, then post it under the right section. I don't see the following, that used to be part of this article anywhere. It is not "anti British diatribe" Given the atrocities the british committed in India, it is hard to overstate/exaggerate the negative impact they have had on the economy. This is the relevant section:

"The British rule ruined India economically.GDP estimates An estimate by Angus Maddison, formerly of Groningen University, reveals that India's share of the world income went from 24.4% in 1700, comparable to Europe's share of 23.3%, to a low of 3.8% in 1952" Clearly quotes and sources have been provided. I am adding it back into the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.39.35 (talk) 07:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why this should not go here. (1) The East India Company was more than just the 'ruler' of British India and had impacts far beyond India. (2) British rule took several forms of which the East India Company was but one and impacts should be detailed in an overview article. (3) The quote does not lay the blame for the economic decline on British rule - note for example that the Mughal Empire was already in decline and economic trouble when Aurangzeb took the throne in 1707. The battle of Plassey did not take place till 1757 and it was 149 years after 1700 that the British finally took control over the Punjab. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 08:58, 6 January

2009 (UTC)

When you find the right place for this, perhaps it would be useful to give some idea of the accuracy of this calculation. I couldn't find the citation for this quote in the previous versions, but I am sure Prof. Maddison must have considered the uncertainty. Thehalfone (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone provide documentation for EIC activities against Tibet? As far as I know the only British expedition into Tibet, the Younghusband expedition, was quite a few years after the EIC was wound up. Technomad (talk)
I have not heard of EIC activities against Tibet. They did send an exploratory expedition there though - it didn't lead to a lasting trade or diplomatic connection but it was an important source of information which I think was used later. I will try and add some info on this when I am at home with my books - I think Keay goes into some detail about this. Thehalfone (talk) 09:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

The Pitiful and Violent Rat of a company East India Company (PVRCEIC)??? wtf? 208.58.26.153 (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article - "East India Company (English)"

Can we agree on this change.Vontrotta (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm afraid, I don't see a case for this name. Not by a long shot. Please see my reply in the section above. I think we need to first bring it up on the dab page and then proceed with a request move to plain old East India Company. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To tell the truth, I didn't understand your point above. I don't see how we can request to make this the "East India Company" page when there needs to be a disambiguation page for different uses of East India Company. I also thought that this format, "East India Company (English)", was the standard format used when there are multiple articles with the same name. As far as I can tell, there is consensus that "Honourable East India Company" is wrong, and I don't see anyone else agreeing that this article should be named "East India Company" in light of the need for some disambiguation. My frustration grows partly out of the fact that you have taken a similar position in the British India discussion - you agree that there needs to be change, but then advocate a change with which no one agrees - the result is no change and being left with a defective article. I am not arguing bad faith, just personal frustration that we are left now with two problem articles with no clear way forward. Any one else care to comment?Vontrotta (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there is no reason why this East India company cannot go to East India Company so long as there is a disambig note to direct to the others.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are lots of such examples, such as, India and India (disambiguation); England, England (disambiguation); Ireland, Ireland (disambiguation), United States, United States (disambiguation); and France, France (disambiguation). In fact it is par for the course for names that have various uses, but are overwhelmingly used for just one. In other words, I am advocating that the current East India Company dab page be moved to East India Company (disambiguation), and the Honourable East India Company be then moved to "East India Company" with a note (up top) in the latter drawing the reader's attention to the dab page.
As for Vontrotta's notion that no one else is agreeing with me, I would urge her/him to read the last discussion, Talk:Honourable_East_India_Company#Page_Name. As far as I can tell, all three people who responded, were agreeing with me. As for British India, I have always maintained that it can't be a standalone article, but has to be redirected either to British rule in India or British Raj. All major tertiary sources, Britannica 2008, Britannica 1911, and Encarta are agreed with me on this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just read the Talk:British India discussion. You and I are pretty much have the same point of view there! Sorry, I had to be away and couldn't contribute anything during the last month. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Looks like there is consensus then to change this article to "East India Company" and to seek consensus to change the disambiguation page. Great! So, is someone going to take the next step? I haven't done this before and would love to see someone else take the ball and run with it. Vontrotta (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd suggest that it should be posted up on WP:RM (Where all the instructions are). The a discussion tarts, ad then after a few days some clever monkey sorts it all out. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will request the move soon. I just read the instructions at WP:RM. We have to do a "multimove," in other words, first "East India Company"-->"East India Company (disambiguation)" (whose own redirect back to "East India Company" has to be undone), and then "Honourable East India Company"-->"East India Company." The discussion will take place below. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Parsecboy (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We are requesting that the page name be changed to East India Company since the latter name is used overwhelmingly for the English/British/Honourable East India Company by secondary and tertiary sources. See the Page Name section above for recent discussion. We are also requesting that the contents of the current East India Company page (a disambiguation page) be moved to East India Company (disambiguation). Please discuss below Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I support the move. I'd be surprised if any of the other companies has ever been referred to as "East India Company" (in English). 81.98.251.134 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

IMO, this should be moved straightaway. WP is not the place to have this "Honourable" nonsense.-Bharatveer (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm. It is the name of the company? It will be remaining in the lead anyway. --Narson ~ Talk • 05:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide references.-Bharatveer (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are kidding right? Its cypher was HEIC. Its civil service was the HEICCS. It was referred to as the Honourable Company. Just do a google search. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Narson that "Honourable East India Company" (and abbreviation "HEIC") should be in the lead paragraph. However, "Honourable East India Company" was not the official name of the Company; it was how the Company was styled, and it was used only after 1709, after the merger of the London Company (old) with English (new) to form the United Company. I just noticed that this is not really stated anywhere in the article. I won't add it there just yet, but will create a section below with some references. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said trading name rather than name. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good description. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As is the nature of the period, de facto often becomes de jure. Anyway, hrm, the list of names I can find refs for it going by are East India Company, Honourable East India Company (HEIC), Honourable Company. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
  • The words of the actual charter granted by Elizabeth I to the Company (the original London Company) on December 31, 1600. (I couldn't locate the actual charter, but did find a reference to the charter in a letter written by Elizabeth I three weeks later ("Witnes or selfe at Westminster the xxiiijth of Ianuarie in the xliijth yeare of or Reigne." (i.e. January 23, 1601)). It is to be found in the book, The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619. On page 3 (after a long introduction of some 86 pages), the letter written by Elizabeth I states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto or said Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by or tres Pattents vnder or great seale of England beareing date at Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated or said Subjecte by the name of the Gournor & Companie of the merchaunts of London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XVteen yeares ..." Clearly, the Charter didn't say anything about "Honourable." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Review of The Relics of the Honourable East India Company, London: Bernard Quartitch, 1909, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts, July 16, 1909, p. 726: Quote: "...so that the body known to us as the Honourable East India Company, which lasted down to 1858, may be said to date from a charter of Queen Anne of 1709." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Harvard reference Quote (p. 14): "The English Company [Including The General Society chartered by William III, 3rd September 1698] trading to the East Indies, commonly called "the New Company," was incorporated by William III, 5th September 1698; its charter running to 1714. The above Company of Merchants of London, and the English Company, were finally incorporated under the name of "The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies" [commonly styled, "the Honourable East India Company"] in 1708-9." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:Harvard reference Quote (p. 7): "In 1709, the Company amalgamated with a rival group, which had been chartered in 1698 by William III. This union took the title 'The Honourable East India Company,' which was shortened for general use to 'the Honourable Company' and more often still to 'John Company', until it ceased operations in 1834, after its monopoly of British trade with China was discontinued." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "Honourable"

  • To give another example, the Hudson's Bay Company, too was referred to as the "Honourable," although not as frequently as HEIC. In the book, The Great Company: being a HISTORY OF THE HONOURABLE COMPANY OF MERCHANTS-ADVENTURERS TRADING INTO HUDSON'S BAY, published in 1899, we are told on page 51, "His majesty granted to them and their heirs, under the name of 'The Governor and Company of Merchant-Adventurers Trading into Hudson's Bay,' the power of holding and alienating lands and the sole right of trade in Hudson's Strait and with territories upon the coasts of the same." So, it seems that the official name didn't have "Honourable" in it and one can verify this directly by looking at the actual Charter of the Hudson's Bay Company, where the Royal Proclamation names it, "Governor & Company of Adventurers of England Tradeing into Hudsons Bay," but without the "honourable."
However, as the book title suggests, and as Narson suggests, "honourable" was used in formal, professional (or "trade," see advertisement below), or solemn contexts. On page 60, we read, "On the seventeenth day of November, 1671, the wits, beaux and well-to-do merchants who were wont to assemble at Garraway's coffee-house, London, were surprised by a placard making the following announcement : "On the fifth of December, ensuing, There Will Be Sold, in the Create Hall of this Place, 3,000 weight of Beaver Skins,* comprised in thirty lotts, belonging to the Honourable, the Governour and Company of Merchants - Adventurers Trading into Hudson's Bay." Such was the notice of the first official sale of the Company. Up to this date, the peltries brought back in their ships had been disposed of by private treaty, ..." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, here's the OED (Draft Edition, June 2008) entry for "honourable": "2b. Applied as an official or courtesy title of honour or distinction."
The prefix ‘Honourable’ ... is also applied to the House of Commons collectively; ... also formerly to the East India Company, etc.
Examples: "1643 Let. from Irish Council 28 Oct. in Clarendon Hist. Reb. VII. §344 To our very good lord, the lord Speaker of the right honourable the Lords' House of Parliament..and to our very loving friend, William Lenthall, esq., Speaker of the honourable Commons House in Parliament.... 1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 38 In pay for the Honourable East India Company." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

With this in mind, we might want to re-write the intro. It currently read:

The Honourable East India Company (HEIC), referred to most commonly as the East India Company, also, historically and colloquially, as John Company, or as Company Bahadur in India, was an early English joint-stock company[1] formed for trade with the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

I'd suggest something along the lies of:

The English East India Company, officially the Honourable East India Company (HEIC) from 1709, referred to most commonly as the East India Company, John Company, The Honourable Company or as Company Bahadur in India, was an early English joint-stock company[1] formed for trade with the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia.

Does that seem acceptable? --Narson ~ Talk • 21:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the following change to your suggestion:

The East India Company, also the English East India Company,[1] and sometimes the British East India Company,[2] was an early English joint-stock company[3] formed for trade with the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia. The Company was granted an English Royal Charter, under the name Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, by Elizabeth I on 31 December 1600.[4] After a rival company was set up in the late 17th century, the two companies were amalgamated in 1708 under the name United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies, commonly styled the Honourable[5] East India Company,[6] and abbreviated as HEIC;[7] it was colloquially referred to as John Company,[8] and in India as Company Bahadur.[9]


I feel that "Honourable" should occur in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence. This is because too many names presented all at once become confusing for a new reader; also, none of the other major tertiary sources, Britannica 2008, Britannica 1911 (which was published only a half century after the dissolution of the company), Encarta, Encyclopedia Americana, Columbia Encyclopedia, or Webster's Encyclopedia mention "Honourable" anywhere in their articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Encyclopaedia Britannica 2008, "East India Company"
  2. ^ Columbia Encyclopedia 2007, "East India Company, British"
  3. ^ The Dutch East India Company was the first to issue public stock.
  4. ^ The Register of Letters &c. of the Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies, 1600–1619. On page 3, a letter written by Elizabeth I on January 23, 1601 ("Witnes or selfe at Westminster the xxiiijth of Ianuarie in the xliijth yeare of or Reigne.") states, "Haue been pleased to giue lysence vnto or said Subjects to proceed in the said voiadgs, & for the better inabling them to establish a trade into & from the said East Indies Haue by or tres Pattents vnder or great seale of England beareing date at Westminster the last daie of december last past incorporated or said Subjecte by the name of the Gournor & Companie of the merchaunts of London trading into the East Indies, & in the same tres Pattents haue geven them the sole trade of theast Indies for the terme of XVteen yeares ..."
  5. ^ A. Oxford English Dictionary (Draft Edition, September 2008, requires subscription) entry for "honourable": "2b. Applied as an official or courtesy title of honour or distinction." Usage: ... the prefix ‘Honourable’ ... is also applied to the House of Commons collectively; ... also formerly to the East India Company, etc. Examples: 1698 FRYER Acc. E. India & P. 38 "In pay for the Honourable East India Company." B. Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, "HONOURABLE (Fr. honorable, from Lat. honorabilis, worthy of honour), a style or title of honour common to the United Kingdom, the British colonies and the United States of America.... The epithet is also applied to the House of Commons as a body and to individual members during debate ("the honourable member for X."). Certain other corporate bodies have, by tradition or grant, the right to bear the style; e.g. the Honourable Irish Society, the Inns of Court (Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, &c.) and the Honourable Artillery Company; the East India Company also had the prefix "honourable." The style may not be assumed by corporate bodies at will, as was proved in the case of the Society of Baronets, whose original style of "Honourable" Society was dropped by command.
  6. ^ Template:Harvard reference Quote (p. 14): "The English Company [Including The General Society chartered by William III, 3rd September 1698] trading to the East Indies, commonly called "the New Company," was incorporated by William III, 5th September 1698; its charter running to 1714. The above Company of Merchants of London, and the English Company, were finally incorporated under the name of "The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies" [commonly styled, "the Honourable East India Company"] in 1708-9."
  7. ^ Template:Harvard reference Quote (p. xiii): "Abbreviations: Honourable East India Company (HEIC)."
  8. ^ Template:Harvard reference Quote (p. 7): "In 1709, the Company amalgamated with a rival group, which had been chartered in 1698 by William III. This union took the title 'The Honourable East India Company,' which was shortened for general use to 'the Honourable Company' and more often still to 'John Company', until it ceased operations in 1834, after its monopoly of British trade with China was discontinued."
  9. ^ Template:Harvard reference. Quote (p.39): "... They came to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur.† Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted by their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. ... †: 'the Company Bahadur': an honorific title by which the East India Company was known among Indians. 'Bahadur' means brave, powerful, sovereign."

British East India Company

This page should be moved to "British East India Company" because that is the proper name. East India Company implies that this is the only East India Company, however there is also a Dutch East India Company. Skycaptain95 (talk) 22:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the disambiguation would be East India Company (British), most likely. But I think the British one has a fair claim to be the primary for this one. We just had an RM to move the page, might be a tad soon to go for annother. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Skycaptain95: No, I'm afraid "British East India Company" is not primary usage in the secondary and tertiary sources. The primary usage, as I have indicated above, in section Page Name, is, by an overwhelming margin, simply "East India Company." There are five times as many references that refer to the English/British/Honourable EIC as simply "East India Company" as those that call it "British East India Company." When there is such unanimous primary usage the disambiguation page takes the form of East India Company (disambiguation), which if you notice has the same form as United States (disambiguation) (there are/were many other United States as well, but the page name for the US is simply United States). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS East India Company (disambiguation) was slightly different from United States (disambiguation), I have now fixed it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you think about it, I still believe that the East India Company should be moved to a page that signifies that it is the British one because this may imply to some readers that there is only one East India Company. This is not true and saying that this is the "default" or "primary" one is not giving all the facts.
-Thanks Skycaptain95 (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for better or worse, there is a style of naming that is followed overwhelmingly by the reliable sources, including the tertiary sources. Here are three:
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica: lead paragraph: "East India Company also called English East India Company, formally (1600–1708) Governor and Company of Merchants of London Trading into the East Indies, or (1708–1873) United Company of Merchants of England Trading to the East Indies. English company formed for the exploitation of trade with East and Southeast Asia and India, incorporated by royal charter on Dec. 31, 1600. Starting as a monopolistic trading body, ..."
  • Oxford English Dictionary (requires subscription) entry, for "East India," which it obviously describes as obsolete except attributively: "East India": Obs. exc. attrib. Formerly used = (the) EAST INDIES. East India Company: a company formed for carrying on an East Indian trade, especially the English company incorporated in 1600, and described in its charter as ‘The Company of Merchants of London trading to the East Indies’, which from 1773 exercised political power in the East, and had the chief part in the administration of the affairs of Hindustan, till 1858, when the government was assumed by the Crown. (OED, June 2008, draft version)
  • Webster's Encyclopedia: "Main Entry: East India Co. Variant(s): or English East India Co· English chartered company formed for trade with E. and S.E. Asia and India, incorporated in 1600. It began as a monopolistic trading body, establishing early trading stations at Surat, ... In 1708 it merged with a rival and was renamed the United Co. of Merchants of England Trading to the E. Indies. Becoming involved in politics, it acted as the chief agent of British imperialism in India in the 18th-19th cent. ... See also Dutch E. India Co., French E. India Co.
Obviously, they are aware that there could be confusion of the kind you describe; why do you think they nevertheless persist? Why do you think the United States page persists in calling itself that when there are other United States; especially, why does BBC link to the one in headquartered in London, when there are so many other BBCs? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS The East India Company page says, right at the top (before it says anything else), "For other uses, see East India Company (disambiguation)." So, if a reader is looking for (say) the Dutch East India Company, they will automatically go to the disambiguation page; however, I do see one point in what you say: an entirely new reader who accidentally stumbles on the page and has no background whatsoever, will likely not know that there were other companies until well into the text. The solution to that problem is not to change the name of the page, but to introduce the fact of the existence of other companies somewhere in the lead. Let me think about it; will get back soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) OK, I've now tweaked the lead. There shouldn't be such confusion even for a rank novice. What do you think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand what you mean now. Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this. I think that works a lot better this way.
- Thanks Skycaptain95 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that a Scottish East India Company was authorised in 1695 by the Scottish parliament (the Honourable Company - John Keay p182 isbn 0-00-638072-7). I am not sure whether ship ever sailed or not, but it makes the point that this was an English company, under English law even after the Treaty of Union. Thehalfone (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bantam

I am changing the following: "Initially, however, the Company made little impression on the Dutch control of the spice trade and at first it could not establish a lasting outpost in the East Indies." - The company established a factory at Bantam during the first voyage in 1603, this was finally wound up in 1683. Thehalfone (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial India Sidebar

Colonial India
Colonial India
Map of colonial India, distributed by the British Information Services (1942)
Austrian India 1778–1785
Swedish India 1731–1813
Dutch India 1605–1825
Danish India 1620–1869
French India 1668–1954
Portuguese India
(1505–1961)
Casa da Índia 1434–1833
Portuguese East India Company 1628–1633
British India
(1600–1947)
EIC in India 1600–1757
Company rule in India 1757–1858
British rule in Portuguese India 1797–1813
British Raj in India 1858–1947
British rule in Burma 1824–1948
Princely states 1721–1949
Partition of India 1947

I have added the "Colonial India" sidebar to the article. I know that this article is not just about colonial India, but since it is the only article that covers the British in India during the years, 1608 to 1757, the template is appropriate, in my view. However, if you don't like it, or feel it should be somewhere else in the article, or not be there at all, please let me know here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom vs. Category:British East India Company

Category:British East India Company is a category within Category:Defunct companies of the United Kingdom — Robert Greer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_India_Company&oldid=282270948"