Talk:Tamil Nadu

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

Good articleTamil Nadu has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 30, 2012Good article nomineeNot listed
June 12, 2024Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Later conflicts: chronology

I'm a bit confused by this chronology about Pondichéry: "By 1693, French established trading posts at Pondichéry. The British and French competed to expand the trade which led to Battle of Wandiwash as part of the Seven Years' War. The British regained control in 1749 through the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle and resisted a French siege attempt in 1759." The Battle of Wandiwash was in 1760; 1749 was before the Seven Years' War started; had the British lost control sometime before 1749? Shouldn't the reference to Aix-la-Chapelle be before the reference to Wandiwash? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Yes, added a line to explain the French capture of Madras, followed by the British repossession and then the Wandiwash battle.
Also you have left clarify tags (as you did with Raja raja and Western Ghats twice) but there is no explanation. Would be helpful if you add comments with the tag as to what clarification is required. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was using the edit summary as a a quick note. If I tag something with “clarify” again, I’ll add a comment here. Didn’t mean to be obscure.
  • The Raja query was that in the same section, there’s a mention of Rajaraja, and also of Raja Raja. Is that the same person? If so, should the name be consistent?
  • the Western Ghats query is that I’m confused whether “Ghats” is a singular noun or a plural noun. Originally, since it ends in “s” I thought it was plural, so takes 3rd person plural verb, but then later on, in one paragraph there’s a reference to the “Ghats have” (plural), and “Ghats is” (singular). Shouldn’t the verb number be consistent throughout, depending on whether Ghats is a singular or plural noun? I looked at the wiki article on Ghat and couldn’t tell how “Western Ghats” is treated.
Apologies for lack of clarity on my clarify tags 😁 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Yes both refer to the same person, will address as same throughout the section. Western Ghats is a chain of mountains, will consider as a plural. Have modified the second sentence to resolve ambiguity. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Later conflicts and European colonization: "the British Crown"

I think this sentence is a bit too simple: "After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Raj was formed after the British crown took over the control of governance from the company." The British Crown didn't have the constitutional power to take over the governance. It was the British Parliament that did it, by passing the Government of India Act 1858, which transferred governance from the East India Company to the Crown. The net result was the same, but I think it's important to have the legal mechanism correct. How about: "After the Indian Rebellion of 1857, the British Parliament passed the Government of India Act 1858, which transferred the governance of India from the East India Company to the British crown, forming the British Raj." Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. Changes made. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legislature: Use of "de jure" and "de facto"

I wonder about the use of "de jure" and "de facto" in the Legislature section, for a few reasons. First, as a general style rule, I always prefer to avoid Latin terms if at all possible, in the interest of Wikipedia:Readers first. If we can express a concept in English, I think that is preferable. Second, "de facto" is an ambiguous term, as shown by the Wikipedia article De facto (not a reliable source, but a good outline of the term). "De facto" can mean without legal authority, but followed in practice, but it can also mean a government leader who usurps constitutional authority and rules without legal authority.

Neither of those apply here. The powers of the Governor, the Chief Minister, and the Council of Ministers are set out in the Constitution. The Constitution vests the executive power of the state in the Governor (art 154), but it also provides that the executive power can be exercised "through officers subordinate to him in accordance with this Constitution". The Constitution also provides for the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister (art 163(1)), and the Governor is to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, except on the powers which are expressly stated to be in the Governor's discretion (art 163(2)). The Chief Minister's powers aren't "de facto".

I appreciate that it can be difficult to quickly explain a parliamentary system of this sort, similar to the Westminster system, but I think it would be best to avoid "de jure" and "de facto". How about the following:

In accordance with the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Nadu is appointed by the President of India. The Governor of the state is vested with the executive authority of the state. However, on most matters the Governor is required to act on the advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, meaning that the actual governmental powers are largely exercised by the ministers, who are drawn from the group or groups which have a majority in the elected Legislative Assembly, and who are responsible to the Assembly. The Indian Councils Act etc.

I don't have a copy of the current edition of Basu which you cite, but I think that proposed summary is consistent with my old copy (12th ed.).

I've also noticed that note 165, Chapter I, Constitution of India (PDF), is a dead link. Would this cite be a good substitute? https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/ Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to Add: the sentence about the Indian Councils Act says that the Madras Presidency legislative council was a mere advisory body – to whom? The Governor of Madras Presidency, or the Viceroy? I wasn't sure? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Law and order heading

I wonder about the use of the term "Law and order" both in the heading and in the section. The term can have ideological significance, at least in North America and maybe the UK, as discussed in Law and order (politics). How about changing the section heading to "Courts and policing", and in the section itself, "is responsible for law enforcement in the state"? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was new to me and was interesting to know that it has a different meaning. In general parlance, Law and Order refers to the preservation of the rule of law, as the first line mentions in the corresponding page. In Indian parlance, Law and order is the common term used to refer policing and courts. It is commonly used in the media 1, 2, 3 and in the official naming convention of the police: The general policing is referred to as police - law and order 4. So my opinion is to keep it as is and simple as per common usage. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I agree - follow Indian usage in an article about India. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_Nadu&oldid=1230746542"