Talk:James Mill

This is more a hagiography than a wikipedia article

This article is in urgent need of revision, sentences such as, ""his intellect was logical in the highest degree; he was clear and precise, an enemy of loose reasoning, and quick to refute prevailing fallacies" should be reserved for eulogies and not wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.171.229 (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

James Mill did not support the Catechism; although this article neglects to mention it. But Category:Atheists has much stronger requirements: what did he disbelieve, and how do we know? Septentrionalis 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It could be mentioned that Mill's "Analysis" is available online at "Internet Archive". Regarding his importance Franz Brentano's critique of Mill could be mentioned.

Richard Blum

Analysis at Internet Archive has been added. But the article still largely reproduces the Encyclopedia Britannica article of 1911. Like Britannica, its body cheerfully omits his death. Errantius (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/jamesmill.htm. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Associationalism or associationism

Under "School" in the infobox there is an entry for Associationalism. It seems likely to me that this should read Associationism; he is mentioned as a prominent proponent on the latter page but not mentioned at all in the former; from skimming the former page, that movement also seems later than Mill. I will be substituting Associationism in the infobox; if someone more expert in the field than I am (not at all) detects this to be an error, feel free to revert, of course. OMHalck (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Refutation of Mill's claims by scholarship

@EarthDude:The narration of Mill as been seriously challenged by various scholars such as Romila Thapar, Kundan Singh and Krishna Maheshwari, Thomas Trautmann, etc. This page currently only discusses Trautmann in detail, not including other opinions. In my view, their view must be clearly put up in the article. Please give your opinion. Thanks IND123456 (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@EarthDude: You've repeatedly reverted but haven't joined the discussion. Could you please explain why you don't think this material is relevant? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had participated in the discussion related to this at The History of British India, as the editor has introduced this same content across several articles. Didn't know they also opened a discussion here. Anyhow, I just don't see how the content they seek to add gives any new meaningful information to readers that the article doesn't already have. — EarthDude (Talk) 14:51, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article presently does not demonstrate comprehensively which vices Mill used for a particular community [Hindoos] regardless of the reality. History work clearly represents a staunch form of Colonial Indophobia as Trautmann rightly notes, but this article doesn't demonstrate it in detail. It doesn't generally tell us what Mill propagated, in which was, and using what words. In my view, it gives a panoramic view of the adjectives Mill used to describe the Hindus and forthgoing to India. IND123456 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Not really. The article already goes into detail over this. The proposed content is quite redundant. — EarthDude (Talk) 16:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@IND123456 I suggest you don't edit war amidst an ongoing discussion. What results in a discussions at a separate article's talk page only pertains to that article. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:08, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I am edit warring here. The content discussed and disputed is almost the same. What is to be differently discussed about it here? Also, if you can revert the content for ongoing discussions, which mainly took place on talk page of History of British India, I don't find a reason to not apply the results here. If you wish however we can discuss the content again here. I would like to invite @EarthDude, @Mx. Granger and other editors for this discussion.

Thanks IND123456 (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I would also like to enquire about the reason you removed the image that was added? IND123456 (talk) 05:56, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd like to restate the fact that whether or not content is appropriate in an article depends on the specific article. The discussion at Talk:The History of British India was regarding the content in that specific article, not the content across all of Wikipedia. You cannot use talk page discussions of one article to subsequently edit war in favor of your version of a separate article. In regards to the image, it was removed by a separate editor, on the basis of it being unhelpful to readers, something I agree with. — EarthDude (Talk) 13:27, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

In the "Intellectual legacy" section, I support including the first paragraph, which notes an important aspect of Mill's thinking (and one that influenced his more famous son John Stuart Mill). I don't think the blockquote is needed here; it could possibly be summarized with a single sentence like "Mill considered the Hindus hierarchical and oppressive."

The addition to the lead seems redundant to me – it already says he was "was one of the prominent historians to take a colonial approach". It might be worth changing "historians" to "British historians". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The lead statement is vague and unhelpful to lay readers and I agree that it'd be redundant. The blockquote seems excessive, but maybe including a concise summary, along the lines of what you've proposed, might work. I'm worried we might be just be repeating what is already given in the article though, considering the paragraph on Trautmann already goes into a lot of detail over his views on the Hindus. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:43, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

I am glad that you agreed and decided to enroll into a constructive discussion rather than earlier direct reverts and rejections. We can surely make necessary changes. IND123456 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

It sounds like the solution I proposed isn't too objectionable to any of us, so I've implemented it for now. We can continue the discussion if anyone thinks it's excessive or inadequate. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:17, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I think for now the changes seem to be good. If anyone has any suggestions or objections, we may seek to improve the article further. IND123456 (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)