Talk:Allan Octavian Hume

CB

Is C.B. Companion of the Bath or Commander of the Bath ? Shyamal 03:51, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Companion. I've edited the article and put a link in. Smallweed 09:24, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Publication list

This is only for those who might be interested in further research and not worth entering into the article. This excludes all notes in Stray Feathers.

• Hume, A. O. (1878): (Letter to the Editors). Ibis 1878, 114-115.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): Additional observations regarding some species of birds noticed by Mr. W.T. Blanford, in his "Ornithological notes from southern, western and central India". Jour. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 39(2), 113-122.
• Hume, A. O. ; Marshall,CHT (1879-1881): The Game Birds of India, Burmah, and Ceylon. 3 vols. Authors, Calcutta.
• Hume, A. O. (1868): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. I. (Grus leucogeranus), Pallas. Ibis, 2 4, 28-40.
• Hume, A. O. (1868): (Letter). Ibis, 2 4, 233-241.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. II. Bird's-nesting in Bareilly in the early rains. Ibis, 2 5, 1-20.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): (Letter). Ibis, 2 5, 120-122.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. III. My first nests of Bonelli's Eagle. Ibis, 2 5, 143-146.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): (Letter). Ibis, 2 5, 238-239.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): (Letter). Ibis, 2 5, 355-357.
• Hume, A. O. (1869-1870): My Scrap Book: or Rough Notes on Indian Oology and Ornithology. Author, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta. x+237 pages.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 136-145.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 145-147.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. IV. A new genus of Sylviidae. Ibis, 2 6, 181-182.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 283-288.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. V. (Emberiza striolata) (Lichtenstein). Ibis, 2 6, 399-407.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 435-438.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 528-529.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 530-532.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 532-533.
• Hume, A. O. (1870): (Letter). Ibis, 2 6, 265-267.
• Hume, A. O. (1871): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. VI. On certainnew or unrecorded birds. Ibis, 3 1, 23-38.
• Hume, A. O. (1871): Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. VII. Ibis, 3 1, 403-413.
• Hume, A. O. (1872): Description of six new species of Indian birds. Ibis, 3 2, 107-111.
• Henderson, G; Hume, A. O. (1873): Lahore to Yarkand. L. Reeve & Co., London. xiv+370 pages.
• Hume, A. O. (1873-1875): Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds. 3 vols. Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta. 662 pages. (Rough notes)
• Hume, A. O. (1875): Notes on two apparently undescribed species of goat from northern India and a new species of dove from the Nicobar Islands. Proc. Asiatic Soc. Bengal 1874, 240-241.
• Hume, A. O. ; Oates,EW (Eds.) (1889): Nests and Eggs of Indian Birds. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. 3 vols. R.H. Porter, London. x+397 pages.
• Hume, A. O. (1869): Indian Oology and Ornithology. C.B. Lewis, Baptist Mission Press, Calcutta.
• Hume, A. O. (1873): Contributions to Indian Ornithology. L. Reeve & Co., London.
• Hume, A. O. (?): Indian ornithological collector's vade-mecum. Central Press, Calcutta.

Shyamal 17:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

License not followed

Text from this article is lifted and used in Freedom fighters of India: (in four volumes) By Lion M. G. Agrawal - page and the book is copyrighted and there is no citation of Wikipedia and the Creative Commons license is not mentioned. Shyamal (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

It's unusual to have a Biography in the External links section. Further the {{Internet Archive author}} has all these books and more in various versions, why are we choosing certain copies only to link. Give them the link to IA, and a list of un-linked books in a Bibliography (or "Works") section. Then they can go to IA, Project Gutenberg, Google Books and anywhere else to find the edition they want to read. -- GreenC 03:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, WP:EL actually says - "If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a PRIMARY HEADING at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article." It is not unusual for articles or multi-volume books to list specific contents available on such sites. Having a raw link that takes someone to the search page of the Internet Archive is fine if the article is a stub and editors can be led to sources but definitely not more useful than a carefully added and ordered list. We actually do choose good quality books scans by the biodiversity heritage library with all pages intact and avoid poor quality scans from Google. There are also instances on the Internet Archive where good content with bad meta-data will not be found easily. Shyamal (talk) 04:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise I have left the search templates and included the much used links (I know quite a few users personally) to the best scans of the works of Hume. I hope you will accept the compromise and agree that not everyone wants to search for content and that giving users more choice does not mean that we have to replace references with a search link for Google and Google Scholar. Shyamal (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

"If an article has external links" .. well that's the question right? However if you believe that it's important to link certain physical copies then cool, so long as we maintain a Bibliography and the general book website templates. Keep in mind the websites are dynamic with new content so the direct links might be improved in the future. Regards. -- GreenC 05:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DNB

The article currently says Hume was born at St Mary Cray, Kent with a citation to the Dictionary of National Biography. I started his Wikisource author page but couldn't locate the DNB article. So should it be the modern Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? Solomon7968 17:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Prof. Moulton's revision was published in the DNB 2004 edition. Added. Shyamal (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the article info is still inaccurate. Our article on the DNB says, The updated Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (ODNB) was published on 23 September 2004 in 60 volumes and online. So the reference is currently cited to the ODNB. The question is, whether it is a straight reprint of a biography previously published in any another edition of the DNB or a new biography. Solomon7968 06:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I have modified the reference to make it look less confusing. I have always thought of DNB and ODNB as being the same work but varying in edition and publisher. As I understand it, biographies are revised or rewritten and this is indicated in the citation. In this case Moulton's biography appears not to be based on an earlier DNB entry. Of course, Moulton has many other biographical publications on Hume elsewhere. Shyamal (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Allan Octavian Hume/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs information on his role in the Indian National Congress. Shyamal 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Allan Octavian Hume. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127075912/http://ask.lub.lu.se/archive/00020515/01/Bensch_etal_Ibis_2002.pdf to http://ask.lub.lu.se/archive/00020515/01/Bensch_etal_Ibis_2002.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Work done by allan octavian hume

, 103.31.100.117 (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Edits by Shyamal

@Shyamal: Why "pro-Indian" is not important for the lead when that is what he is largely known for?

Also why do you need a quotation for something which has been already summarized? Capitals00 (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Capitals00: - I have added a bit on your idea of pro-Indian back into the lead. Altering a quotation is NEVER done in the normal course of scholarship. Note your truncation. Shyamal (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Since you have fixed the lead I have no issue with the current version of the lead. I have restored the removed content but this time I placed it entirely on Congress' section.

Do you have any way to rephrase the quotation? It looks at least undue. Capitals00 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

I do not see any issue with the quotation. Quotes are never rephrased, they are meant to give a first-hand view of the subject's own expression. If you can explain with broader historical sources on why you think it meets WP:UNDUE, we can discuss this further. Shyamal (talk) 09:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Shyamal: Problem with the very big quote is that it comes from a source from 1935 (see WP:HISTRS) and it lends credit to a debunked safety valve theory. Some reliable sources:-

• "Soon after the formation of the Congress, Dufferin was openly castigating Congress for its dubious motives. In 1888, he criticized it for representing a "microscopic minority" and this statement if not anything else, explodes the safety valve or conspiracy theory. Historians now more or less agree that the story of seven volumes of secret report was a fiction created by a friendly biographer Wedderburn to portray Hume as a British patriot who wanted to save British empire from an impending crisis."
• "The “Safety Valve” theory, ascribed to Sir Allan Octavian Hume, is invariably given credit for the origin of the INC in the writings on it all through. This theory has come under attack in a work on India’s freedom movement, the main author of which, Bipan Chandra, applying research methodology in its various levels, finds the theory a myth. Substantiating his argument with the evidence available in private papers such as those of Lord Dufferin, Bipan Chandra explodes the questionable nature of Hume's claim of having read the all-important seven volumes of the Home Department's secret reports, and also, with an adequate reason, questions the very existence of the so called “seven volumes”, the knowledge of which, it is said, Hume used to influence the viceroy and other Important British officials in India to patronise the INC to ensure that it be a “safety valve” for the British rule in the country." Capitals00 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC) Note: adding signature here after Shyamal posted his comment in middle of my comment Capitals00 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I have added a note to the effect that the safety-valve theory is highly debated and it is best to follow WP:NPOV and state its existence. As for the quote you are referring to, it is a verbatim statement by Hume (pre-1912) and not from 1935 although included in Sitarammaya's book (and cited for traceability). Shyamal (talk) 04:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The quotes in the Congress section should be trimmed, and they should be presented in the context that "seven volumes of secret report was a fiction created by a friendly biographer Wedderburn to portray Hume as a British patriot". Capitals00 (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think these details belong in the article on the Indian National Congress as it is not so much about Hume the person which is what this entry's main purpose is. Shyamal (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No, not there because this debunked theory is confined to the discussion about Hume only today.

It is relevant here so that people can know safety valve theory holds no weight and it was not the purpose of Hume. Capitals00 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It is hard to state something like "it was not the purpose of Hume" without finding relevant confirmatory statements from Hume that you can cite. On the other hand, it is much easier to surmise that Hume did coat his idea with the appropriate sugaring to make it acceptable to the powerful in the government even if that was not the intention. The bureaucracy often hides intent in any case. If one looks at the official letters one could say that the Archaeological Survey of India was started with the idea that it would help grow Christianity (because they were able to show that historically there were changes from Jainism and Buddhism ) and if you read Hume's letters you will see that he (like Humphrey) was capable of hiding actual purpose. I am quite aware for instance that his Lakshadweep "expedition" for birds was by official records ostensibly for the selection of a suitable lighthouse site! Shyamal (talk) 04:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hard for who? Scholars? They are of the opinion today that safety valve theory has no weight and it was not motive of Hume. What do you mean by "without finding relevant confirmatory statements from Hume that you can cite"? The above sources I provided are very clear and have assessed the statements and actions of Hume as well asa other surrounding people and events. The first source that I linked has offered many details from p. 220 - 223. It notes on p. 222 that "All these demands raised by the association remained unfulfilled and this all the more convinced the regional leaders about the need for an all-India organisation." In 1913, Gopal Krishna Gokhale already addressed this point that congress could never have its official founder as Indian because "If the founder of the Congress had not been a great Englishman", then "the authorities would have at once found some way or the other to suppress the movement."[1]

Now what I want is: 1) Remove the entire long quote and the 1935 source. 2) treat safety-valve to be a "seven volumes of secret report was a fiction created by a friendly biographer Wedderburn to portray Hume as a British patriot". 3) Highlight the broader picture that why an all-India organization was needed per the source I just quoted. Now if you agree with this then I will make my edits. Capitals00 (talk) 05:38, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You never needed to ask me for permission in the first place - see WP:OWN - I still would ask that you retain the quote because it is a valuable note in the voice of Hume (unless you think the source is questionable? Did the author really misquote Hume? That wold be interesting if you can support). I am fine with the remainder of the expansion but I hope you will use the citation templates appropriately - I think someone suggested that he was a "lightning conductor"... Shyamal (talk) 08:59, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

History

Indian national congress 2402:3A80:1C53:29C7:15FB:A9FF:F578:E9EB (talk) 06:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)