Talk:British Raj

Source

All I can find so far is a quote in AUDIO: Golden Age, verified by a listen just now at around 0:09:35:

Torchwood India was founded by Queen Victoria, to gather up all the alien artefacts in the Raj. [...] And then, one sad day in 1924, Captain Jack Harkness brought official greetings, and an armful of dance records, and ... He had all that lovely alien plunder packed in tea chests, and sent back to the mother country. He took everything away.

Later, the same character speaks of Torchwood India not wanting part in the "new India". She reveals that since 29 February 1924, there was "another world war, independence, partition", eventually leading to the modern India of 2009. There's also talk about Great Britain and the Empire spending "centuries holding this country together" before "let[ting] it all go" when "some fool drew a jiggly line down India", ie. Partition.

So this source doesn't clearly establish what the Raj is, but it does show a clear association to the British Empire, sometime during the rule of Victoria in the 19th century, from which India did not gain independence until sometime after WW2. I'm going to see if anything shows up in prose sources now. At the very least, the term "Raj" does exist, and means something which was related to India and the British Empire.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:44, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

My anthology collection brings up one other instance:

• In PROSE: The Story Eater, on finding out they're in Delhi (and learning that Lady Willingdon Gardens has been renamed Lodi Gardens for over 40 years), Iris says, "Right. Don't mention the Raj, and all that."
  × SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 04:54, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so far so good. But the problem is that the user who created the page defines it in the lead as a time period in India's history (an unsourced time period) and most of the entries that follow merely list things that happened in India during that (unsourced) time period. If we can't define it using an in-universe source, then the page as it exists has to go. Shambala108 ☎ 05:14, July 4, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the above is not much to go on. I would not object to deletion at all; it would force any interested user to have to start from scratch, using only valid sources. If no better source shows up, defining the British Raj more definitively, most if not all of the current article has to go anyway.
× SOTO (☎/✍/↯) 05:26, July 4, 2019 (UTC)