Talk:C. R. formula

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the C. R. formula article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from C. R. formula appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the C. R. formula was a proposal that had failed during the Gandhi-Jinnah talks in 1944?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2009/December.

Wikipedia

India: Politics High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was last assessed in March 2012.

suggestions from CarTick[edit]

Congress and League;

Pls explain the separate electorate for muslims in India.
1937 elections and percentage votings need to be further explained. --Car Tick 13:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C. Rajagopalachari's role;

He considered that in a likely scenario of Japanese invasion India would need the support from the British and hence required the Congress to negotiate with the League i cant follow this.

It is a good effort, has a great theme and has the potential to be a good article some time. In general, it needs some basic copy editing and grammer. The prose is hard to follow in some places as, i believe, it lacks the logical flow. I am not able to make the corrections myself as I havent read much about it myself. --Car Tick 13:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I understand that it would take a lot of effort to fix a very complicated issue without POV of any sort. This is the reason why this had been sitting in my Sandbox for a long time. What makes it interesting for me is that no one agreed on this formula when it was proposed. But eventually in a few year after so much of bloodshed what resulted was similar to the outcome anticipated of this proposal. I'm glad that at least it is now here for anyone to edit and improve rather than sitting my sandbox for eternity. Cheers Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 13:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am glad you started the article. you can nominate it for DYK for sure to start with. well, you are right, Rajaji's foresight is impressive. if this can be added to the article lead with sufficient citations, will make the article even more interesting. --Car Tick 15:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The League considered that the Muslims and Hindus of British India made a two separate nation and hence the Muslims had the right to secede from the Indian Union. I still think this is an awkward formulation. same in the parent article as well. --Car Tick 23:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Moreover, since the British Indian army was dominated by Muslims and Sikhs, the government in London was keen to get both these parties to be on its side in the war rather than appeasing the Congress.[17] Eventually with growing mistrust British administration concluded that no progress towards any agreement could be made unless both Congress and the League agreed with each other.[18]

”

notice the gap between the two sentences and how the first sentence leaps to the second one. --Car Tick 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah spot on. I will sort that out asap. Wiki San Roze^†αLҝ 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh[edit]

It has been discovered that this book:

Gupta, Om. Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Gyan Publishing House, 2006. ISBN 8182053897, 9788182053892.

Contains significant amounts of material plagiarized from Wikipedia articles. (Some other books from the same publisher also have this problem). There is no practical way of determining which material came from Wikipedia, and which came from other sources. Further, widespread plagiarism is an indication of poor scholarship. For those reasons, and according to Wikipedia policy, WP:CIRCULAR, I will be deleting all citations to the book. However I will not delete the material that cites it, as there's no indication that the material is inaccurate. For more background, see WP:RSN#Circular references: Gyan Publishing and ISHA Books, or the archive after it goes there. Will Beback talk 00:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Gandhi Rajagopalachari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyeditor - questions and direction[edit]

In the section on the Ghandi-Jinnah talks, "America had been pressing ..." Pressing who? The British? Or pressing more generally internationally? Cicero UK (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wolpert, Agrawal, and Jayapalan[edit]

There are short footnotes for Wolpert, Agrawal, and Jayapalan but there are no sources for them. If you are a subject-matter expert, please take a look. Perhaps you can repair the citations. —¿philoserf? (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]