t |
|||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.[[User:Iry-Hor|Iry-Hor]] ([[User talk:Iry-Hor|talk]]) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
: I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.[[User:Iry-Hor|Iry-Hor]] ([[User talk:Iry-Hor|talk]]) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
:: Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]] ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
:: Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. [[User:Lingzhi|Lingzhi]] ♦ [[User talk:Lingzhi|(talk)]] 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
||
::: Godammit I gonna go through it, review and give you a pass. I can state that this article deserves it for it preserves the memory in a neutral yet absolutely implacable way. There is no question where the responsability lies. It feels like Ireland all over again.[[User:Iry-Hor|Iry-Hor]] ([[User talk:Iry-Hor|talk]]) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:05, 29 March 2018
Bengal famine of 1943
Bengal famine of 1943 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
It is no overstatement to say that the topic of article is hugely important in the academic literature regarding famine. The Bengal famine of 1943 is considered by academic consensus to be the paradigmatic case of a "man-made famine" (generally considered an inadvertent outcome of WWII; though some Indian nationalists consider it rather less inadvertent). Other scholars disagree, holding that it was a natural disaster, but its natural origins were obscured by the fact that accurate records were not kept of a decisive crop fungal infestation... In any case, it is a seminal event in world history, because of its horrendous death toll, its impact on world opinion regarding [British] colonialism, and its continued controversial nature even to this day... (special thanks to Brianboulton, Ceoil, Outriggr, Mr rnddude & others whose help is greatly appreciated). Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- I cried reading the article and feel that I won't be able to review it properly. I can say that you did a remarkable job on a difficult subject.Iry-Hor (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Godammit I gonna go through it, review and give you a pass. I can state that this article deserves it for it preserves the memory in a neutral yet absolutely implacable way. There is no question where the responsability lies. It feels like Ireland all over again.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. You also said you cried reading the article... I hope this isn't too strong or impolite to say about the text that was on the page before, but quite honestly, the reason I have never given up through 2 years, many arguments, gathering over 300 sources, 2 FACs (1 failed and 1 withdrawn), 1 failed MILHIST A-review, and making well over 5,000 edits is that I felt that the original version of this article (before I ever touched it) failed disgracefully in its responsibility to honor the memory of those who died during the crisis. It did very little to preserve and present the memory of all that happened. Honestly, if not for that feeling, I certainly would have given up after 2 or perhaps 3 weeks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)