. Arguments are strong by both sides, but no one has come to a clear majority. Nothing against relisting if new arguments come to light. (non-admin closure) James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Union of India }} → :Dominion of India (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_India&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-07-25&end=2019-08-23&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Union_of_India stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Union of India|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Union of India closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Union of India|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Union of India closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Union of India|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Union of India closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
Disambiguate: India is also the Union of India, and is still called that, see :Category:Supreme Court of India cases for examples. Recommend reversion to the disambiguation page per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Union_of_India&diff=896786207&oldid=724464308], with the addition of Political integration of India. DrKay (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:::Thanks for post. Yeah, but the "Union of India" of every civil lawsuit etc in India, is antiquated usage of the sort that survives in law everywhere. Between 1947 and 1949, however, it was actually called Union of India, and not Dominion of India except in the India Independence Act (a primary source) and some British and international legal literature pertaining to that. For many years this page was Union of India. That the British Raj split into the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan was stated on the British Raj page as well. (See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Raj&oldid=583977835 here]) In fact the OED copied from us around 2009 (verbatim that is, which I noted at that time on the Talk:BR page), and they continue to state the same until now:
OED: "raj" n., 2. spec. In full British Raj. Direct rule in India by the British (1858–1947); this period of dominion. Often with the. Also in extended use: any system of government in which power is restricted to a particular group. The British Raj was instituted in 1858, when, as a consequence of the Indian Rebellion of the previous year, the rule of the British East India Company was transferred to the Crown in the person of Queen Victoria (proclaimed Empress of India in 1876). In 1947 the British Indian Empire was partitioned into two sovereign dominion states, the Union of India (later the Republic of India) and the Dominion of Pakistan (later the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the People's Republic of Bangladesh)
I'm mystified that the page was moved to Dominion of India and would like to see the discussion around the page move. I'm mystified also because it was a big point for the Indian nationalists, not just of pride, but also of usage and of questions of succession, that the new dominion be called "Union of India," not "Dominion of India." Conversely, the Pakistanis were not happy that India came to be called "Union of India," and feared that India might employ sophistry to make the legal point that it had not officially recognized the Partition, that that Union of India was really the Old Raj which its wayward child, Pakistan, could rejoin whenever it came to its senses. I don't have the time now as I am stepping out, but pinging {{ping|RegentsPark}}, {{ping|MilborneOne}}, {{ping|Philip Baird Shearer}}, {{ping|Abecedare}}, {{ping|Moonraker}}, {{ping|Rjensen}} {{ping|Kautilya3}}, {{ping|Vanamonde93}}, ... lord knows there should be others but my memory is failing me. It should really be the other way round: Dominion of India ---> Union of India, which it was until it was moved. We can't have this sort of antiquated revisionism on Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:38, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - {{U|Fowler&fowler}} is absolutely right. "Union of India" was the official name of Dominion of India, and the redirect shouldn't be deleted. See the old discussion at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominion_of_India#Union_of_India_controversy here]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:*This isn't a deletion discussion. {{ping|Srnec}} {{ping|MikeLynch}} {{ping|JWULTRABLIZZARD}} {{ping|Frenchmalawi}} DrKay (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
::* Sorry, I didn't notice. After the Indian constitution was adopted, the country has come to be called the 'Republic of India'. [https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=byQON81ISAsC&pg=PA535&dq=%22union+of+india%22+%22republic+of+india%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxM-aoJzkAhW2ThUIHb4UB_s4MhDoAQhCMAQ#v=onepage&q=%22union%20of%20india%22%20%22republic%20of%20india%22&f=false This source] says it explicitly. The country has not been called the 'Union of India' afterwards. On the other hand, the Government of India's legal name is "Union of India" as per Article 300 of the Indian constitution. That is why we find it in the Supreme Court cases. If we think it is bothersome, then yes, a disambiguation page would cure it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. The "antiquated usage" Fowler&fowler talks about is as likely to come up in a Google search as anything else. It even appears in the constitution, unlike Republic of India. Srnec (talk) 18:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with {{U|Fowler&fowler}}. Rjensen (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm back. You've probably already figured out that it was moved from UofI to DofI in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dominion_of_India#Requested_move_2011 this hurried page move]. Here are two sources:
- {{citation|last=Winegard|first=Timothy C.|title=Indigenous Peoples of the British Dominions and the First World War|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qzIw-c1YOAIC&pg=PA2|year=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-01493-0|pages=2}} Quote: “The first collective use (of the word "dominion") occurred at the Colonial Conference (April to May 1907) when the title was conferred upon Canada and Australia. New Zealand and Newfoundland were afforded the designation in September of that same year, followed by South Africa in 1910. These were the only British possessions recognized as Dominions at the outbreak of war. In 1922, the Irish Free State was given Dominion status, followed by the short-lived inclusion of India and Pakistan in 1947 (although India was officially recognized as the Union of India). The Union of India became the Republic of India in 1950, while the became the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in 1956.”
- {{citation|last=Desierto|first=Diane A. |editor=Petra Minnerop |editor2=Rüdiger Wolfrum |editor3=Frauke Lachenmann |title=International Development Law: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HiKQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA562|year=2019|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-883509-7|pages=560–582, 562|chapter=International law, regional developments, South and South-East Asia}} Quote: "The British Raj would terminate in 1947, through the official Partition of the British Indian Empire ('Partition') into two separate, self-governing dominions: the Dominion of Pakistan, which declared in-dependence on 14 August 1947, and whose territory included the territories of present-day Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the Union of India, which declared independence a day later on 15 August 1947. The two largest provinces of the British Raj, Punjab and Bengal, would be subdivided between the Dominion of Pakistan and the Union of India. On 26 January 1950 the Union of India would be dissolved in favour of the Republic of India."
- I'm too busy right now to attempt to move the page back to Union of India. But the nonsense about George VI being the King of India has to go. If he was, then is there an example of him being called that in the presence of an Indian, a Nehru perhaps? I'd like to travel back in time for that event? Any example, for that matter, of an Attlee or the Bevans, or Strafford Cripps calling him that after 1947? Is there an example (a chance photograph perhaps) of anyone raising the Union Jack in India after 1947, let alone singing God Save the King? I have hundreds of coins from 1768 (EIC days) to 1964 (Death of Nehru). You can see some of them on the British Raj page, but I've never seen a coin issued after August 14, 1947 that had the bust of a British monarch on the obverse., This is precisely the kind of nonsense that gets created on Wikipedia. I will be removing it from this page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:29, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
:*The argument isn't over whether the dominion was called the union, we know it was, but the government of India is also called the union. Most google hits for "Union of India" refer to the modern usage, in fact virtually all in my searches, except for wikipedia pages and their mirrors, which would make the modern usage the primary topic. DrKay (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
::No tertiary sources today say, "India, officially, Union of India." That term is employed in India as a synonym for "federal," (Union Territory, Union minister, ...) and also in case citation as the universal respondent in federal cases. Both these turn up on Google. But my sources aren't just randomly spewing "Union" in a Google search. They are focused scholarly searches and the say precisely that the political union that in common international and diplomatic parlance was called "India" between 15 August 1947 and 26 January 1950, that moreover was a dominion, was officially called the "Union of India." Furthermore, if a source mentions, "the Union of India and the Dominion of Pakistan," in the same breath, when referring to some event between those two dates, then it can't be because they have let the words of the Indian Constitution (about India being a union of states) somehow confuse them. They are doing so because India actually was not called the "Dominion of India," in the way that Australia, NZ, South Africa, Canada, and Pakistan (and later Ceylon) were. See, for example:
:::*{{citation|last1=Debs|first1=Alexandre|last2=Monteiro|first2=Nuno P.|title=Nuclear Politics: The Strategic Causes of Proliferation|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AdTpDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA327|year=2016|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-108-10773-0|pages=327–|authormask=|format=|origyear=|oclc=|doi=|bibcode=|id=|quote=|laysummary=|laydate=}} Quote: "Since it became independent, Pakistan has viewed India as its main foreign threat. In August 1947, the British Indian Empire was divided along religious lines, with the Dominion of Pakistan as the Muslim-majority state and the Union of India as the Hindu-majority state, leading to massive population transfers that entailed great bloodshed, and a death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands."
:::*{{citation|last=Tillema|first=Herbert K.|title=International Armed Conflict Since 1945: A Bibliographic Handbook Of Wars And Military Interventions|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=q96iDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1979-IA22|year=2019|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-429-71509-9|pages=1979–|authormask=|format=|origyear=|oclc=|doi=|bibcode=|id=|quote=|laysummary=|laydate=}} Quote: "India and Pakistan were founded as separate states at independence in August 1947 (17.1). Individual princely states recognized under the Raj were expected to select whether to accede to the avowedly secular but Hindu-dominated Union of India or to the Moslem-dominated Dominion of Pakistan to the east and west of India."
::*As for your valid point about Union of India not being well-defined, there an easy way to fix it. Make two pages: (a) Union of India (dominion) and (b) Union of India (case citation). Move this page to (a). Redirect Dominion of India also to (a). Add a paragraph of explanation to (b). Then let Union of India go to a dab page which has two entries (a) and (b). Your kind of dab page is ahistorical. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
:::*Key point from this post is "let Union of India go to a dab page". DrKay (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Disambiguate: I agree that Union of India should not redirect here, so it should go to a dab page. I am sure it's a good idea to have a separate page for the Union of India while it was still a British dominion, so the issue then is what to call the page. "Union of India" doesn't work, because it's too ambiguous, as explained by others. Union of India (dominion) is clumsy, and India (dominion) is just an awkward way of saying Dominion of India. Indeed, that isn't what India was commonly called at the time, but it was sometimes called that, and from where we are now it's probably the best option. Moonraker (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::*I'm thinking. ... {{ping|Moonraker}} First, thanks for a clear reply. A few things worry me though including about my own solution above.
:::*If Union of India goes to a dab page, and this page remains the little shrine to a faded age that it is, or was until yesterday, the chances are even greater that bright-eyed Wikipedians of the near future will turn Dominion into standard usage for post-colonial South Asia, not just for India. (Don't put it past them to write: Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan was born on blank blank 1948 in Lyallpur, Punjab province, Dominion of Pakistan, during the reign of King George VI.) The other thing I don't understand {{ping|DrKay}}: you seem like a bright person, you give concise cogent responses to my long posts, and it seems like you're maintaining this page, why have you allowed this little shrine to continue in all its faded glory on this page? George VI, by grace of God, what faith might he have been defending in India after 1947, especially when he isn't doing any of that on the British Raj page, nor are his ancestors? I mean if we want a litany of the regnal titles, in the 21st century, we'll go to the monarch's page, why are we getting this enforced double education on the sleepy little dominion of India page?
:::*My final question is the most important one, and it applies to the India page as well on which people were opposing the mention of "officially/official name Republic of India" on the grounds that India's constitution says, "India, that is Bharat, shall be a union of states ... etc.," i.e. interpreting that to imply "India," unadorned, to also be an official name. Final question: What then is "Union of India" if it is not the dominion in question? I'd like a clear delineation of that other Union of India supported as clearly by scholarly sources as the Union (dominion) does above. It is not enough to type in "Union of India" in Google and interpret the data by eyeballing it or by parsing primary sources. (For "Republic of India," for example, there are dozens of such clear definitions (see: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/Archive_45#Proposal here] or on the Government of India's own official web site: [https://www.india.gov.in/india-glance/profile scroll down here to "Government"]). I'd like to similar clarity for Union of India in the period 1950 onward.) ... thinking more ... Given the likelihood of no clarity, I fear that dabbing Union of India will have the effect of killing it for ever. So, until we have such clarity, I'm voting Keep with the added proviso that the lead sentence and the infobox both say, "Official name, or officially, Union of India," and the page be disabused of monarchic beneficence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
::::*The world is full of people who aren't paying attention, and no doubt some Wikipedians will make that mistake, and others, but on the South India pages I believe they will be corrected soon enough. I think what you have quoted above is the only thing in the Indian constitution which suggests the name of the country, and in English it points us towards "India". That works for things like coins and stamps, where it is unambiguous, and we also have our main article on the present-day country at India, which also seems to work. (That article claims, with several citations, that the "official" name is "Republic of India", but the sources all look like second-rate directories published in London and New York, which seems to show no authentic source for an official origin has been found yet.) I support adding "officially, Union of India" into the Dominion of India page, if a good source goes with it. On that "monarchic beneficence", we know there was almost none of that, but India remained a kingdom until it became a republic in 1950, and Pakistan was one until 1956. They are strange facts, but still deserve to be noticed, perhaps! Moonraker (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Certainly as regards titles; there was no separate title for *any* of the Dominions until 1953; when each dominion passed a separate Royal Titles Act to specify exactly what title said dominion wanted the Queen to bear in right of it. (Curiously enough; Pakistan's didn't mention Pakistan, but did the United Kingdom, though it omitted 'Defender of the Faith'.) There certainly *were* treaties made in the name of George VI as regards India during the period August 1947-January 1950. I'll do a bit of digging and see what I can find.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Here's the text of the Treaty of Friendship between India and Switzerland, carried out in the name of George VI:
https://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishmenthttps://mea.gov.in/bilateral-documents.htm?dtl/5163/Treaty+of+Friendship+amp+Establishment
JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect to Names for India and add necessary explaination on the target page about what it is, when was it called so and so on whatever Fowler explained here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If this is closed as anything other than disambiguate, would the closer please speedy delete G14 the redirect Union of India (disambiguation), which does not currently target a disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Still no consensus, should be closed as such if no new opinions arise.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 13:38, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
