Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Rao Tularam

As per Duke university Rao tularam the ruler of Rewari played a major role in Haryana

Haryana

In Haryana, Rao Tula Ram played a key role in uprising against British. Around 17 May 1857 Rao Tula Ram occupied all government buildings. An army of 5000 was raised to fight the British. Rao Tula Ram was at the point of defeating the British forces when Naga sadhus from Jaipur and Sikh Army from Jind, Kapurthala and Patiala rescued the British forces. On 16 Nov 1857 the combined forces of British, sikhs , Naga sadhus along with artillery support won. Later he joined Tantya Tope, after the defeat of Tantya Tope he left India to meet rulers of Iran, Afghanistan and Russia to keep fighting against the British.

| Rao Tula Ram

Multiple academic sources state , kindly consider these academic books Clearly mention that Rao Tula Ram a prominent leader in revolt, kindly consider page 53

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renuka bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 23:57, 17 Feb 2022 (UTC)

Sources are good, rebellion was in other parts like Haryana Haryanas role in rebellion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddgimata (talk • contribs) 01:16, 18 Feb 2022 (UTC)

— Toddgimata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The first source is a WP:PRIMARY source; the remaining are not reliable. Sorry, but you will need reliable secondary sources, especially scholarly ones. Please read WP:SOURCETYPES. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

References

I have provided two secondary sources. Since there is primary and two secondary sources, overall three scholarly sources Is it ok to mention about the role of Punjabis region and Rao Tula Ram. . I think these three scholarly sources can be used. one is primary and other two is secondary.

In Punjab Rao Tula Ram organized forces against the British but the British with the help of Naga Sadhus and Sikh army succeeded against the rebels.

Secondary source – This is scholarly book Social Movements and Social Transformation by MSA Rao which clearly mentions about Rao Tula Rams role in 1857 rebellions

One more secondary source which is a scholarly article mentions about Rao Tula Ram and Punjab region, Please consider one primary and now two secondary scholarly books.

Those books are not "published" by the University of Michigan or Northwestern, only copied by them for Google Books. MSA Rao's book is published by Manohar Publisher, which is not necessarily unreliable, but the book generally is, as it seems to be a dated glorification of Ahirs and Abhiras, which it equates. Rao also goes on the say, "Abhiras were of Aryan descent. They wielded political power in Khandesh, Magadh , Uttar Pradesh, Malwa, Bengal, Maharashtra and Kabul ..." We, on the other hand, say in the Yadav page, "Yadav refers to a grouping of traditionally non-elite, peasant-pastoral communities or castes in India that since the 19th and 20th centuries have claimed descent from the mythological king Yadu as a part of a movement of social and political resurgence. The term Yadav now covers many traditional peasant-pastoral castes such as Ahirs of the Hindi belt and the Gavli of Maharashtra. Traditionally, Yadav groups were linked to cattle raising and as such, were outside the formal caste system."

PS My general sense is that Tula Ram can perhaps be mentioned but he does not deserve a section of his own, nor mention in the lead or the infobox. His exploits are in the nature of Mutiny at the Margins. See the Crispin Bates edited volumes. One of them has this mention of the letter Tula Ram wrote to the Czar of Russia after arrival in Kabul: To the Highest Court of His Majesty the Tsar, the Shadow of God and his Deputy on Earth, the Hakan and the Son of Hakan, the Shahinshah and the Son of Shahinshah, the Russian Emperor, ... Since ancient times the princes and rulers of India have been looking with hope at the Highest Court, the asylum of peace; they always had been the object of care and good will of the Highest Court of the true Shahinshah. Today the oppressive hand of the English government is laid on Hindus and Muslims of India ... Later on English sahibs took possession of Your servant's lands, as well as guns and other armaments and all; and since your victorious army did not appear, the ruling persons of India, who could not find either justice or shelter, decided that the only thing lieft for us to do was to dispatch someone to the court of Your Majesty, and that messenger should be on of the ruling persons. Thus everyone unanimously elected me, ..." The Russian consulate viewed the letter with suspicion and it was ignored but filed away. Tula Ram seems to be a marginal figure in the Rebellion, with generally unattributable exploits. I'm sorry he does not belong to any significant mention on this page. This is an encyclopedia article; as such is a highly selective summary of the rebellion. So, again: Tula Ram certainly does not belong a section of his own, or in the lead or infobox. You could draft a short paragraph here but cited to better sources. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Respected Fowler&fowler, MSA Rao has mentioned close to what wiki mentions, he has talked about the discrimination faced by Yadav in Bengal, Bihar etc,,.. Any how I appreciate all your feedback and glad to interact with you. Also Barbara Harlow is well known scholar, Barbara Harlow has taken archives and published it. In Page 400 it is clearly mentioned about Rao Tula Ram action in 1857, Can we have a section for Punjab and talk about Punjabs.

Duke university book https://www.google.com/books/edition/Archives_of_Empire/xtFRtX2PSrwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rao%20tula%20ram

The Panjab Past and Present is a scholarly book as well talks about Punjab

Kindly reply to my query if Punjab can be added as a section. Thanks for patience , Hopefully my english is clear. Respectfull Regards

Your English is fine. I am caught up in improving some other articles. Please give me some time. I'll examine the scholarly sources, and draft something. If you haven't seen any activity here (from me) in a week, please ping me. Sorry this has to be slow. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Respected Fowler&fowler, appreciate your feedback, I have highlighted some sentences from the book, hope this is usefull and some additonal stuff about the scholars.

Crispin Bates Crispin Bates is Professor of Modern and Contemporary South Asian History in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh and ‘former director’ of the University’s Centre for South Asian Studies.

Marina Carter Marina Carter obtained her doctorate in history at the University of Oxford. She was a Research Fellow working on the Indian Uprising in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at the University of Edinburg https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mutiny_at_the_Margins_New_Perspectives_o/5ygBDgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tularam+1857&pg=PT223&printsec=frontcover

Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857 Section 14 Crispin Bates and Marina Carter have clearly mentioned Rao Tula Ram as an active participant in the rebellion and discuss about Russian trip'

Barbara Harlow – University professor at Texas Archives of Empire Volume I. From The East India Company to the Suez Canal In Page 400 Barbara Harlow states, that Rao Tula Ram played a prominent part in revolt against British rule in 1857 and talks about battle in Nasibpur https://www.google.com/books/edition/Archives_of_Empire/xtFRtX2PSrwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rao%20tula%20ram

MSA Rao - Social Movements and Social Transformation In page 126 MSA Rao talks about Rao Tula Ram played an important part in 1857 mutiny and talks about meeting between Rao Tula Ram and Tantia Tope https://www.google.com/books/edition/Social_Movements_and_Social_Transformati/wWEiAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Tantia The Panjab Past and Present Department of Punjab Historical Studies, Punjabi University Page 71, 73 and 74 Rao Tula Ram has been vividly described as the key participant of 1857 Rebellion and provides details about rebellion in Punjab'

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Panjab_Past_and_Present/Eo8MAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=1857

Its hard to tell, these all seem like rather trivial mentions, and its hard to get a context.Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

He was the key leader of revolt in northern india where he is considered as a hero specially in haryana , delhi , rajasthan and punjab . Various government hospital , national highway , flyover , delhi university college and various school have been named before him . He is like a ideal for all northern indian men for army . he should be included Jaideep thakur (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

what trivial mentions , it is clearly mentioned that rao tula ram played a prominent role Jaideep thakur (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Trivial as in one line. Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir there is clear mention of caste "Ahir" in martial races that was released on the bases of 1857 rebellion of India and the same is only due to Rao Tula Ram and Rao Gopal Dev , and 3 verified sources has alrady been provided , please add the text again which was removed by some notorious user Aniket chaudhary12 (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I have removed the following text from the article that was being repeatedly added by Jaideep thakur

In Haryana, Rao Tula Ram played a key role in uprising against British. Around 17 May 1857 Rao Tula Ram occupied all government buildings. An army of 5000 was raised to fight the British. Rao Tula Ram was at the point of defeating the British forces when Naga sadhus from Jaipur and Sikh Army from Jind, Kapurthala and Patiala rescued the British forces. On 16 Nov 1857 the combined forces of British, sikhs , Naga sadhus along with artillery support won. Later he joined Tantya Tope, after the defeat of Tantya Tope he left India to meet rulers of Iran, Afghanistan and Russia to keep fighting against the British.

The reason being that the above content is undue without supporting WP:HISTRS-compliant secondary sources. A few additional notes:

1. The Carter&Harlow book is simply a set of readings from primary documents on the topic. Instead of citing it, we can refer directly to Who's Who of Indian Martyrs, Vol. 3, p146 from which the particular text-of-interest has been taken. (For the moment lets even set aside the questions of whether this Government of India produced publication is WP:HISTRS-compliant.)
2. As you'll note the Who's Who is set of pocket bios. of "patriots who were hanged or killed in the course of the [India's] national struggle for freedom" with Volume 3 limited to those involved in the 1857 rebellion. Volume 3 contains roughly a thousand sketches and so does not, by itself, help us decide which of these persons should be mentioned individually in this summary-style Wikipedia article that aims to cover all aspects of the rebellion. (Note that a person being called 'prominent' in the Who's Who is not sufficient either since that label is used 77 times in Volume 3 alone).
3. To determine weight we need reliable secondary sources and see how much weight they give to different regions and persons involved in the rebellion. Unfortunately, the secondary source cited in the edit (this Haryana GK book) is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. Among the other sources mentioned in this discussion:
   • Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857 doesn't really discuss Tula Ram's role in the rebeliion per se but is concerned with a letter he wrote to Tsar Alexander II a few years later.
   • Not sure if Social Movements and Social Transformation would qualify as a reliable source for the rebellion and if it covers the Haryana rebellion or Tula Ram in any detail (doesn't appear to be the case from the snippet I can view on Google Books). The author's wikibio suggests that the 1857 rebellion is not a focus of his work in general, or this book in particular.
   • I will need the full bibliographical data and content details to form an opinion on The Panjab Past and Present, which appears to be a collection of articles. Please specify what exact article is being cited along with author info etc.
   • Sarfarosh: A Naadi Exposition of the Lives of Indian Revolutionaries is not even worth discussing.

(TL;DR)  If editors wish to include content related to Haryana or Tula Ram in the rebellion, they will need to (1) provide complete bibliographical information about the secondary scholarly source they wish to cite, and (2) provide details what those sources say on the subject so that due weight can be assessed. Simply searching Google Books and linking to the found snippets indiscriminately is not productive. PS: Can we also stop attributing publicatiosn to the university library where Google Books scanned a copy from. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

With the reasons you made 90% refrences on this article will be discarded :) Ankit solanki982 (talk) 08:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022

2409:4051:30E:27CA:DC79:7FAB:C9FC:E2A8 (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

He was the key leader of revolt in northern india where he is considered as a hero specially in haryana , delhi , rajasthan and punjab . Various government hospitla , national highway , flyover , delhi university college and various school have been named before him . He is like a ideal for all northern indian men for army . he should be included Jaideep thakur (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

please add at least a paragraph for our hero Shashi Sharma873 (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

There something cleaned by someone which is inappropriate as Rao TulaRam name was missing , which was there before 3 days . Rao Tula Fought battle of Nasibpur against Britishers in 1857 with their 5000 men and almost defeated but Britishers atlast open armoured and hence India lost . There was graveyard of Col Gerrad and phillipes who fought at Nasibpur . So it is requested to wikipedia pls edit and make sure that no body delete and edit the reality happens

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir there is clear mention of caste "Ahir" in martial races that was released on the bases of 1857 rebellion of India and the same is only due to Rao Tula Ram and Rao Gopal Dev , and 3 verified sources has alrady been provided , please add the text again which was removed by some notorious user Aniket chaudhary12 (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

3 verified sources has already been provided ,Sir Aniket chaudhary12 (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

In Page 400 it is clearly mentioned about Rao Tula Ram action in 1857, Can we have a section for Haryana again?

Duke university book https://www.google.com/books/edition/Archives_of_Empire/xtFRtX2PSrwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rao%20tula%20ram Aniket chaudhary12 (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That source makes a single mention, and not as a leader, but as someone deputized to seek foreign aid. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Jaideep thakur (talk) 11:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

have provided the same please check Jaideep thakur (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I do not want to change but a section "HARYANA" has been removed , please add the same Jaideep thakur (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"HARYANA" was not a separate disctict at the time, it does not deserve its own section. Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Bihar was also not a state back then , remove it also Avnichaudhaari (talk) 12:47, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

That is a other stuff argument, and two wrongs do not make a right. But you may have a valid point. Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The same can be added as a subpoint of punjab with a heading present day Haryana, i suppose this may end the controversy

Or we can add it there and not have a sub heading. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

 Note: Closing this request while under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

References

State Haryana

Add Haryana or remove all states that did not existed in 1857 Jaideep thakur (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

THis is being discussed above, asking the same question 15 times does not strengthen the argument. Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Till the time no action has been taken Haryana should be added there, if you are going to remove all states then remove Haryana also Ankit solanki982 (talk) 11:33, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

He was anyday bigger leader than Tula Ram as per all writers on the revolt of 1857, and you were doing disruptive editing for him. Now you have been blocked by editors, so enjoy your indefinite break from Wikipedia RS6784 (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

No action has been taken still Jaideep thakur (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect, you took very pointy action here here and here by starting to delete other sections, because Haryana wasn't included. You will be blocked if you do something like that again. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Indian states

It has been pointed out that we contain sections on regions that did not exist at the time, many of them quite small, and not significant theatres. Should we restructure so that we remove all these smaller (and modern) subdivisions and only list the major regions? Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, we should only use names of the regions which existed at that time for different subsections. Sajaypal007 (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note this discussion does not mean there is consensus for removal. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Note also wp:point. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Maybe now that the disruptive editor has been blocked, this restructuring proposal can get some more serious attention? Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 05:20, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I hope so, as they may have had a valid point. There seems to be little reason to have modern borders used to delineate "theaters". Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Some of them are perfect, some needs correction. There is another issue in Meerut section of the page word "Gurjar" has been mentioned but it should be either Goojur, Gujar, or Gujjars because that is what the references used might have said so. No page number is provided for the details as well in that case, looks like a violation of WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE in that Meerut section especially with respect to Gujars role in the revolt.

Writers like William Dalrymple has sounded very negative on their role in his book "the Last Mughal". I will provide the references as well. RS6784 (talk) 10:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

This has been an issue for a while, its just some of these localized (minor) revolts have slipped through. Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

For names of the region, we should go by the references for eg: Assam, Bihar were definitely there, so was Punjab, Kanpur was written as Cawnpore but there should be no issue in adding Kanpur alongside it because that is the meaning of the word. The problem is only with respect to the new regional names if any such are present on the page.

The sock accounts points were on addition of the word "Haryana"- this was the official name of the region post-1966 reorganization of state of the Punjab otherwise it was part of the old Punjab Province. Secondly, areas like present day Haryana ( then part of Punjab) were mostly loyal regions except odd cases. So giving the region more coverage doesn't make any sense. The sockpuppets demands were completely in violation of WP:UNDUE RS6784 (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Rana Beni Madho name in the list of Leaders

Many leaders of importance have got mention on this encyclopaedia article in the list of leaders column, but Rana Beni Madho or Beni Madho Baksh Singh of Shankarpur estate who was very important figure as per many writers hasn't even found mention on the page in the Awadh section of Revolt ( which was the most toughest for British as per all accounts) when in fact he deserves mention in list of leaders at the top. He was appointed as Nazim of Jaunpur to Azamgarh by infant Nawab Birjis Qadr. He led a decent army of 25000 men and 28 guns as per one primary account of British official , and was pursued by 4 senior British commanders of the revolt Evelegh, Alfred Horsford, Hope Grand and Lord Clyde in an special operation specifically to capture him. The revolt in south Awadh which was very brutal only came to end after his silence. He finds great mention inCol George Malleson's book. He should be given space in list of leaders as well as some coverage in Awadh section of Revolt of this page.

His role in the revolt surpasses many leaders including Maulvi Ahmad Ullah Shah who finds mention in list of leaders, and this when there is regular demand for addition of marginal players in the revolt like Rao Tularam and Nahar Singh. All writers admit the revolt was primarily fought in the Gangetic plains ( and Awadh played an important part in it).

I can provide more references to the some I have given below and many definitely reputed ones

References

RS6784 (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

We do not needed to expand the list, it should only contain the top leaders, not someone who commanded something. If anything its needs recusding to only the top three or 4 commanders on each side. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

fair point, but how is Ahmadullah Shah above Rana Beni Madho. In Awadh region, after Begum Hazrat it is Beni Madho who played the most important role. There is no coverage of him even in the whole encyclopaedia article not in Awadh section as well  RS6784 (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding 4-5 commanders, he led decent big army at par with Tatya Tope etc. This is surprising Revolt was fought in Awadh the most brutal ( specifically south Awadh from native place of Beni Madho) and no leader from that region in list of leaders and not even coverage or details of Beni Madho in Awadh section of Revolt of 1857. I hope editors should look into it. RS6784 (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Well for a start Tope was considered the best of the rebel generals, for another he was involved in one of the more notorious incidents in the Mutiny. He was not "just another general". Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As per writers like Jaiwant E Paul and some others he wasn't better than Kunwar Singh at the least, I am not asking for Tope's name removal but some coverage in Awadh section for Rana Beni Madho. I would request you my friend to go through as to why Rana Beni Madho was pursued by 4 British Generals ( if he wasn't anything), I can provide many sources for him including from reputed books, journals. Thanks  RS6784 (talk) 15:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The point is revolt was most brutally fought in Awadh belt including Gangetic plains. Begum Hazrat Mahal was a nominal head, her son Birjis Qadr was young child, therefore who who has the person handling this region ? Answer to it is in Beni Madho. RS6784 (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

As I recall most RS credit Begum Hazrat Mahal with leading them. Slatersteven (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Rana Beni Madho deserves some coverage in Awadh section of this page. I hope you will agree here. There is enough sources on him and suprisingly those who edited the article missed it. It was in the region of Awadh where the longest combing operation of 1857 was done by the British. There has to be reason why he was pursued by 4 senior commanders ( it forms a special episode in the revolt itself). He wasn't a random leader as per British point of view  RS6784 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It is a question of reliability, but more so of due weight. Wikipedia guidelines are governed by WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:TERTIARY, which together say:

When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

This is a high level article, which aims to provide highly summarized information which is both highly reliable and has due weight.

@RS6784: Do you know of any widely used under-graduate textbooks in Indian history such as Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf's A Concise History of Modern India, Cambridge University Press, 2012, or Sekhar Bandyopadhyay's From Plassey to the Partition: A History of India, 1757–1947, Orient Longmans, 2004, or Peter Robb's A History of India, Macmillan, 2011, or Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India, Oxford, 2005, or Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund's History of India, Routledge, 2014, or Percival Spear's Penguin History of India, Volume 2, that mention your protagonists? Do you know of even more focused books which substantially cover the period of the rebellion including the civil rebellion in Awadh, such as Rudrangshu Mukherjee's Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858: A Study of Popular Resistance, Oxford University Press, 1984, or Christopher Bayly's Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Cambridge, 1988, or Eric Thomas Stokes's The Peasant Armed: The Indian Revolt of 1857, Cambridge, 1986, that substantially mention your protagonists? If not, then another page might be more appropriate for their inclusion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of them have mentioned him, Stanley Wolpert has mentioned him in his book. In book of Thomas R Metcalf ( archived version), there is proper details about his importance. I will share all the references here. RS6784 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Stanley Wolpert calls him "virtually independent monarch" in this book.

I will add other references below it as well. RS6784 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

What is your goal here, to understand the rebellion or to engage to boost of your favorite "rebels?" If the former, you should at least be reading Wolpert in context. Beni Madho is a bit of an aside. Wolpert says:

While no nationalistic leadership (in the modern sense) emerged, the revolt had many subnational Indian currents, the most powerful of which was the reassertion of tradition-bound monarchies. The greatest landed magnates of Oudh, like Man Singh and Rana Beni Madho, had virtually been feudal monarchs before the annexation; now they saw themselves stripped both of their traditional martial lordship and of substantial village revenues. In such regions, the “mutiny” is more accurately seen to have been a “postpacification” revolt. Once aflame with rebellion, the rugged badlands of central India proved most difficult to pacify, and Bundela thakurs and other Rajput and Maratha local leaders launched effective guerrilla sorties there well into 1858. But the traditional inability of Indian rajas and nawabs to subordinate personal ambitions and jealousies to national goals plagued rebel ranks from the Great Revolt’s inception.

So Wolpert is really saying that Beni Madho was a feudal grandee of sorts, a land owner (which in India, and elsewhere, obviously, meant an exploiter of peasants) of such a great extent as to be a local monarch. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

For your information, all feudal lords are not exploiter. Pls go through Stokes book where he openly mention how Beni Madho tenants were supporting of him and this made British more worried as he had a clout in Awadh region. Suprisingly all writers in their book agree that this Revolt was fought primarily by Zamindars, Taluqdars, and Rebel sepoys of Gangetic plains not someone from Maharashtra as the front of page of article try to present it. I got no issue on it but maligning someone based on wild conjecture is not the needed response here. I will add more references below. RS6784 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

We allude to this on the British Raj page history section,

"At the same time, it was felt that the peasants, for whose benefit the large land-reforms of the United Provinces had been undertaken, had shown disloyalty, by, in many cases, fighting for their former landlords against the British. Consequently, no more land reforms were implemented for the next 90 years: Bengal and Bihar were to remain the realms of large land holdings (unlike the Punjab and Uttar Pradesh)."

Beni Madho was very likely a reactionary looking to recover his lands to further exploit the peasants who had bailed him out in his hour of need, not to further advance any political system in India to replace the British. I think we will need to mention this aspect of him, in some suitable encyclopedic phrasing. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

This is very selective aproach, Thomas R Metcalf in aftermath of Revolt of 1857 calls him valiant Leader who didn't surrendered unlike Nana Saheb etc, And if I use the same logic it applies to all including Rani Jhansi etc. You call him reactionary leader without going into all the references, I would request you to go through some of the references. I will add more details. No writer has called him as such and some have even pointed out how British led unsuccessful attempt to capture him. Sorry to say without going into all details you are sounding very negative. I would request for an impartial review, not maligning some leader without any basis. RS6784 (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

"Despite this atmosphere of calculation some of the most prominent among the Oudh taluqdars distinguished themselves by their devotion to the ousted Lucknow court. For such men the political objectives of the revolt clearly mattered. The most famous among their number was the Bais chieftain Beni Madho Bakhsh of Shankarpur in Rae Bareli district. " - By Thomas R Metcalf on Page no 198 in "Land, landlords, and the British Raj : northern India in the nineteenth century" - 1979, Berkeley: University of California

Press

Thomas R Metcalf is writing exactly opposite to what you have interpreted in his case. He says he had a political motive. RS6784 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

" What is your goal here, to understand the rebellion or to engage to boost of your favorite "rebels?" If the former, you should at least be reading Wolpert in context. Beni Madho is a bit of an aside. "

Not here for boosting, I have gone through decent records on him, no writer has said anything bad on him. On the other hand this Encyclopaedia article has done boosting for some characters like Tatya Tope etc. He is not my favorite character or as such, He was not mentioned on the article that is why I am putting the point here. Considering the fact that 4 Senior British commanders like Hope Grant, Evelegh, Horsford and Lord Clyde were after him in a special operation, he doesn't seems like a marginal figure. This has been mentioned in Rudrangshu Mukherjee's book and some others as well. Had the editors who edited this page clearly given details on some of the actions in the Gangetic plains including mention of leaders etc, I would not have even used this talk page discussion. Thanks and best, I will add more references below this RS6784 (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

please read wp:or, we go with what the bulk of RS consider important, not what we do. Nor do our personal feelings enter into it. Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@RS6784: I do appreciate that you have engaged in a talk page discussion, a welcome contrast to those who don't. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:38, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

@RS6784: Not maligning him, but stating that although he was certainly patriotic, he was not "nationalistic" or forward-looking in any sense of the word. His allegiance was to the Awadh court, which had been deposed a year earlier. He wanted it restored. He was certainly not averse to recovering the 234 villages over which he had the right to extract rent. The reason that he is not as notable as the major leaders mentioned in the lead is that the British has concentrated a lot of effort in fighting the latter, brought in regiments from elsewhere, and so forth. Once the major rebellion in Delhi, Jhansi, Kanpur and Lucknow had been suppressed, the civil rebellion of Awadh lingered on because the British put it on the back burner. It did not pose as much of a threat. Some people call it the post-pacification revolt.

Anyway, I don't mean to go off on this. As I stated above, he seems notable. He needs to be mentioned in the Awadh section. Let us worry about drafting something that an NPOV assessment of him and his role in the rebellion. Why don't you propose a medium-size paragraph here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

My draft below: In the region of Oudh, various Rajas, Taluqdars supported the rebels and joined the revolt of 1857. One of the most important amongst them was Rana Beni Madho, who was close confidant of Begum Hazrat Mahal and kept the rebellion alive in South Oudh and nearby regions. As per British intelligence reports, he along with his followers were threatening Lucknow-Kanpur road and as a result of it four senior commanders of British forces Lord Clyde, Horsford, Evelegh and Hope Grant were given the task to catch hold of him in a military operation. This incident also forms an special episode of its own in the revolt. Mukherjee, Rudrangshu (2002). Awadh in Revolt, 1857-1858: A Study of Popular Resistance. Permanent Black. pp. 136–139, 158. ISBN 9788178240275., this should suffice WP:NPOV, Rest I openly disagree with your point that he had only contribution in Post-pacification phase of Revolt. He along with his followers were threatening Lucknow-Kanpur Link road, this has been mentioned by Mukherjee, as well as in one book of Thomas Metcalf's book. I would request editors not underestimate things, writers have not said anything as such on him. And most have been positive on him

Apologies, some error and the draft didn't got added in first edit. RS6784 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

My draft below: RS6784 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It is? Link please as all of your edits seem above this line. Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Beni Madho is mentioned in Mukherjee and in Stokes. That means he is worthy of a mention in the Awadh section. How significant and long it might be probably needs to studied further. He doesn't deserve an infobox mention, which are only the major leaders, who need some attribution in the tertiary sources, which neither Mukherjee or Stokes are. (Adding note: I had posted this much earlier; it seems like it has been shuffled, not unsigned as the bot would have added a signature. Signing again.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Add Rana Beni Madho in the main page, Rana Beni Madho is great Rajput leader, The glory of the Rajputs will come out in wikipedia. all stating Rana Beni Madho great leader of India, so mention it. If this continues wikipedia may be banned - Rashtswysangh LD RSS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rashtswysangh LD RSS (talk • contribs) 21:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

YOu need to make a wp:policy based argument, not make threats of off wiki action. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Pinging senior editors who always provide valuable inputs @Fowler&fowler: @Slatersteven:, dear editors is this matter completely closed, as I was told to draft a small para here. I am asking this also because senior editor @Fowler&fowler: didn't sounded negative with respect to some of my points like adding content wrt Rana Beni Madho in Awadh section of the page, I have even provided the draft for the same, it was very short. The issue was this is encyclopaedia article and this case shouldn't cross WP:Undue, therefore I kept it short & crisp. My draft is there in the earlier comments. Sorry again, if I might have sounded little biased here, whatever you guys decide now I will gracefully accept it. Thanks and Best RS6784 (talk) 17:35, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Adivasi kaha he

Where are tribes 2409:4043:513:1CD6:0:0:1CBD:28AC (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Care to provide some wp:rs discussing their contribution? Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 May 2022

Please add reference to newly published monograph.

Reference should be under the subheading: 'Historiography and memory'

Pender, Sebastian Raj. The 1857 Uprising and the Politics of Commemoration, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052276, ISBN: 9781009052276.

Thank you. 88.98.205.189 (talk) 12:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Without knowing what you want to use it for we can't action this, and please read wp:not. Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Historiography and memory

Bates, Crispin, ed. Mutiny at the Margins: New Perspectives on the Indian Uprising of 1857 (5 vol. Sage Publications India, 2013-14). online guide Archived 16 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine; With illustrations, maps, selected text and more.

Chakravarty, Gautam. The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination (Cambridge University Press, 2005).

Deshpande, Prachi. "The Making of an Indian Nationalist Archive: Lakshmibai, Jhansi, and 1857." journal of Asian studies 67#3 (2008): 855-879.

Erll, Astrid (2006). "Re-writing as re-visioning: Modes of representing the 'Indian Mutiny' in British novels, 1857 to 2000" (PDF). European Journal of English Studies. 10 (2): 163-185. doi:10.1080/13825570600753485. S2CID 141659712.

Frykenberg, Robert E. (2001), "India to 1858", in Winks, Robin (ed.), Oxford History of the British Empire: Historiography, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 194-213, ISBN 978-0-19-924680-9

Pati, Biswamoy (12-18 May 2007). "Historians and Historiography: Situating 1857". Economic and Political Weekly. 42 (19): 1686-1691. JSTOR 4419570.

Pender, Sebastian Raj. The 1857 Uprising and the Politics of Commemoration, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022), https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052276, ISBN: 9781009052276.

Perusek, Darshan (Spring 1992). "Subaltern Consciousness and the Historiography of the Indian Rebellion of 1857". Novel: A Forum on Fiction. Duke University Press. 25 (3): 286-301. doi:10.2307/1345889. JSTOR 1345889.

Wagner, Kim A. (October 2011). "The Marginal Mutiny: The New Historiography of the Indian Uprising of 1857". History Compass. 9 (10): 760-766. doi:10.1111/j.1478-0542.2011.00799.x. 88.98.205.189 (talk) 12:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

If anything that while section needs trimming, we are not a bibliography. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Do we really need this huge list of works? Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Indeed, anything not cited in the text should not be in references. There is scope for some, but by no means all, to be moved to a "further reading" section. DuncanHill (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well how about two or three general histories (say the major ones), a few (not all) first-hand accounts (say two or three from each side) and only the major literature?Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

And only books about the Mutiny, and not wider social or political histories? Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I've separated the works called by sfn references into a "Sources" section, and relabelled the rest as "Further reading". I've also removed the fictional works as a start. DuncanHill (talk) 17:31, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

 Not done

 – ;; Maddy ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ :: talk  14:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

change 'Rebellion of 1857' to 'First Indian War of Independence or Rebellion of 1857' Adithya legendary17 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, please look through the archive as to why it has not been done. Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

There is something cleaned by someone which is inappropriate as Rao Tula Ram name was missing , which was there before 3 days . Rao Tula Fought battle of Nasibpur against Britishers in 1857 with their 5000 men and almost defeated but Britishers atlast open armoured and hence India lost . There was graveyard of Col Gerrad and phillipes who fought at Nasibpur . So it is requested to wikipedia pls edit and make sure that no body delete and edit the reality happens

In Page 400 it is clearly mentioned about Rao Tula Ram action in 1857, Can we have a section for Haryana again? Duke university book https://www.google.com/books/edition/Archives_of_Empire/xtFRtX2PSrwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rao%20tula%20ram — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansevenuk (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Or we can add it there with Haryana heading. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (This comment was not made by Slatersteven, and was included in the original request, possibly copied from somewhere else. See this revision)

Is this not a straight up copy and paste of one above? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I have modified the request Stansevenuk (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

You should not alter another users posts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: The original post was not altered, Stansevenuk just copied the format and made his own edit request. Ive gone ahead and fixed the signature to say the correct request opener, aswell as a note. Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I see some sourcing provided but the change is unclear in this request. It sounds like there has been some previous discussion about whatever changes are requested here but somehow, those changes didn't seem to make it into this request in the form of "please change X to Y". Examples of requests may be helpful if anyone cares to re-open this issue in the future. --N8_wilson 🔔 16:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Put the flag of Kingdom of Nepal

Why are you disrespecting Nepal by not putting a flag on the infobox?? It looks as if Nepal was a village state. Nepal has always been a sovereign country. 27.34.16.71 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

What was its OFFICAL flag at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

its political causes

doctrine of lapse doctrine of lapse was a method of expansion of british political dominions it was a method started by lord dalhousie ,the doctrine stated that if a ruler of a territory dies without leaving a natural male heir his domninion will automatically pass into the hands of the company . some states falling under this doctrine were jhansi , satara , nagpur. 103.88.217.176 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

subsidiary alliance, by lord wellesly , governor general of india . the nizam of hyderabad was the first to enter 9in this alliance the alliance was made so trhat the british would help the territories and state if they would follow some rules stated below they would in return helpm them in management and also give them milatry aids . the rules which they had to follow were 1- they had to give som,e sort of money or a part of thier territory for the manasgment of british army 2- they had to kieep a british officialo called resident in their capital all the time 3- they had tpo remove all western officals or pupuls except british wether they atre of any high ppost or noit they had to be removed 4- they had to always take reccomendatuion from britishh before entering in any alliamnce or sort . Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

fague and floating ruymours it was believed that the britishers came in india succesfully in 1757 battle of plassey and they would go in 1857 Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

treatment mented to nana saheb nana saheb the adiopted son pf peswhwa baji r5ao 2 was refused the pebnsion oif his fsathetr it wass a great disrespect and a shovck nfor indians specially hibndu becausae he was idol for msawny andvalso with his pebsion he deid manhy good works Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

disrespectc shlown tio baghadur shah 2 it was stated that his succesors willl not live in the uimnoetrial poalace and secondlt they woulda alspo naot get the imperail titkles liuke kinf Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

What edit do you wish to make? Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

@Slatersteven: Why have you been constantly reverting my entire edits even though your only complaints are with me removing Victoria from the list? Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply just restore the content rather than starting a needless edit war? Considering other articles on conflicts of the Victorian Era don't include her in the list should give her a pretty good precedent that there's an established consensus against her inclusion in the infobox and it's generally just bloat. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Because you keep on ignoring my issue. Now I agree (and made the point a while ago) we shous remove all but the major leaders. But Bahadur Shah II was no more a military leader than she was. and arguably Ahmadullah Shah was not a major leader. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Then I'll remove him too as after reading his article, I at least interpret him as a ceremonial figure as well. I'll remove Ahmadullah Shah as well as he's not even mentioned in the article at all. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

History

The rebel of 1857 wars The wars between who and who? 160.238.75.32 (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Read the article Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 October 2022

Please add more substantial information regarding the rebellion in Sandal Bar and correct the information. Please ask me for any source required. MrHyperForEver (talk) 10:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Without sources this can't be done. Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Flags

OK, lets go through this again, we can't use any non official or unsourced flags. To have a flag (assuming we need them, what do they add?) it must be an officially recognized national flag. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for flags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: If you've read through my talk page, you can clearly see that they are indeed sources and I've already provided sources to them. what do they add? They serve as visual identifiers to generally depict a side and it just makes the article feel incomplete without them, especially since literally every other Military History article uses flags. This is the 4th time I'm asking you to provide your sources and given the fact you still refuse to provide any, let me ask you on why shouldn't they be added? besides your very, very vague statement of "cleaning up garbage". SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

It is you, again you, yet again you that needs to provide the reliable sources that the flags were employed in the battles of the Indian rebellion of 1857. Perhaps you need to read about syllogism first, then some first-order logic, or if that is too complicated, at least historical fallacy Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Over at RSN, two of them, have been declared not RS, the other is in fact deprecated. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

No not your talk page, Super, or for that matter under your pillow. It is here that you need to provide the scholarly sources stating that flags were employed in the battles of the Indian rebellion of 1857 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: According to WP:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."

You're making an analysis that flags weren't used during the era of the country's reign, therefore you must have sources of your own to back up that claim. This is currently the 3rd time you've attempted to deflect your lack of sources. I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to read my previous discussion with @Slatersteven:, despite you participating in the discussion itself but you'll just have to go back there and read it if you really want sources. Also yet another blatant violation of WP:CIV, wonderful.

@Slatersteven: I've told you to check the sources in the Bhagwa Dhwaj article itself and considering it's not being nominated for deletion, then the sources on that article should speak on how you still fail to provide any sources that they weren't used. Also, keep in mind, you've only said 2, implying that literally all the other sources are good enough, thus making your claims of unsourced flags even more nonsensical and reminder that you yourself have said: The union flag is a verified flag.

No I said 2 were not RS, and the other (your produced 3, Wikipedia is not an RS) was in fact deprecated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's some other sources if you really value sources so much:

• here
• here
• here

SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Note, if you do not make a case here you do not have consensus for your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

crwflags.com is not an RS

I am unsure what your third source says, as it seems to be about the Indian national flag. So only your first source might be useful, except it gives no dates as to when it was adopted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:RSP says nothing about CRW flags so sorry if I'm having a difficult time believing you. The third source is about how the flag is typically used as a symbol of culture of India. Here's another source describing the Maratha flag, SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That is only for regularly discussed sources, I am talking about RSN. It is user generated content. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The same RSN discussion also mentions that the 2nd initial source is reliable which also contains the other flags I've mentioned. Even then, in the Jodhpur page of CRW, they directly cite a literary source for further reading. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

NO it does not, its says its deprecated, one user made a mistake. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Only one user says the source is deprecated while the other claims it's a reliable source. Unless they change their mind or opinion, I don't think it's a "mistake" as you claim as such. Another source incase you're wondering. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually multiple users have said they are not RS. They have also raised flag cruft as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

SuperSkaterDude45, random internet sources are not reliable or sufficient to establish a flag exists, let alone whether it is due for use here. That flaglog link has a flag for Australia almost half a century before Australia even existed. CMD (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The Australian flag is specifically referring to the Australian Federation Flag which has already been a thing since the 1830s. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I know what it's referring to, and the source is wrong in presenting it as the flag of Australia, which, again, did not exist. CMD (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The Federation Flag was pretty much the only actual flag used at the time to represent the entirety of Australia as some colonies such as Victoria and New South Wales didn't even have any official ensigns and the flag was popular enough to where it was used within the East Coast until the official flag began being used in 1901. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I too have read the Wikipedia page on the topic. None of this changes the fact that Australia did not exist, and that there is nothing suggesting the site in question is a RS. CMD (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: But what disqualifies it as a RS besides that one example (that has some historical merit)? I've checked the RSN discussion myself and some of the sources I've cited haven't even been addressed in the talk as the latest message is from Slatersteven. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Most things aren't reliable sources. As far as I can see the link is just someone's website. You need to show something is a reliable source. Please read WP:Reliable sources for more info. CMD (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• @SuperSkaterDude45: My apologies but you're bringing the same crappy sources that you pulled out a year ago. None of the sources you're listing above even remotely qualify as a reliable source. this, titled Indian Culture from some government website. In this we're supposed to rely on Jarig Bakker and Sanjay G. This you're using to say something about flags and culture which has nothing to do with this article. Didn't we go over all this a year ag? Pulling random stuff again and again from the internet is extremely disruptive so please try to read WP:RS, and, for good measure, WP:HISTRS before pulling stuff from the internet. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:31, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  For the record the discussion from January 2022--RegentsPark (comment) 16:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  @RegentsPark: First off, WP:HISTRS is an essay but even then, if you read WP:HISTRW, some of the sources I've listed do follow what is listed in that list. For the CRW flags article, read this as they source a scholarly source. ...something about flags and culture which has nothing to do with this article Well my friend, when the entire debate is about flags and their verifiability then there needs to be something called historical significance to the flag with secondary sources per WP:GNG. Also bold of you to cite the previous discussion that never came to an actual conclusion but you still cite as "consensus". I've said this before and I'll say it again: Provide your own sources that the flags weren't used as coming into a conclusion with 0 basis besides hypothetical thought is a perfect example of WP:OR which you seem to blissfully ignore.

Regardless, none of this even matters as the point of this new discussion was at least orginally about a undiscussed and no consensus move by Fowler&fowler before it somehow diverted into yet another discussion about verifiability that will likely go nowhere just like the last talk. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• Aldo Ziggiotto writes about every topic under the sun and doesn't qualify as a scholarly source. Also, are you seriously asking for a source that says a flag was not used? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

  Considering you've come to that conclusion, I'd at the very least expect there's at least some kind of basis behind that conclusion rather than a baseless and unsourced assumption that even somehow affects verified flags like the Union Jack and the Nepalese flag? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This really needs closing, it is getting far too personal, an it is clear there is no consensus for this. Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

My proposal is that at the very least the Union Jack, the BEIC flag and the Nepalese flag can be restored as they're the only flags which seem to have no disputes over their legitimacy. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Cart before the horse

Before we worry about finding reliable sources for these flags, we need to ask whether we should include them in the first place. Flag cruft is an issue here. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what it adds really. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blueboar: My reasoning for the inclusion of flags is that typically, military history articles include flags if they are applicable. Even more significantly more controversial wars such as the Yom Kippur War and the Bangladesh Liberation War have flags within the belligerents section of the infobox. Now if we were talking about flags within the commanders section then I'd agree it would be bloated. Unless this war is suddenly so controversial enough to the point where the omission of well documented flags such as the Union Jack (which has been in the article for a solid year), I really don't see why this war in particular should see special treatment compared to literally any other military engagement article. My main issue is the sudden deletion with the justification of "removing garbage" and not really with the verifiability of the flags themselves. See the "Indian rebellion of 1857" section of my talk page for more context. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Actually this article is highly controversial, both its nature, its aims, and even its name. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

There are many other wars that have similar controversy regarding how they're lead up (World War I, the 2003 invasion of Iraq), the background geopolitics (Six-Day War, Vietnam War) and name (Paraguayan War, American Civil War). All of these articles have flags so again, why should this article get special treatment? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it should not, but how many of those have a controversy over what flags to use? Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, re-adding the Union Jack, the East India Company flag and the Nepalese flag as they're pretty much the only flags that don't seem to have any controversy over their verifiability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Forget it super. Ain’t gonna happen. British Raj or Company rule in India don’t have flags, then how have you divining the armies carried flags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: They have flag templates for a pretty good reason. Take it up to WP:TFD if you have a problem with them as that's their responsibilities and not mine. I just typically want consistency among military articles and there has still been a lack of a reason why this article should get special treatment since most of the arguments presented here are violating WP:PRIOR. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Please don't keep pinging me Super. I have no interest in communicating with you, nor hearing your benighted nonsense. I'm posting here to communicate with the knowledgeable people here which you very clearly are not by a long shot. Understood? If you put those darned flags in the infobox, your edit will be reverted. Again, do not ping me. I have limited amount of time reserved for Wikipedia and I very deliberately and determinedly do not wish to spend it on you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice to essentially see you admit that you have no actual arguments and instead choose to go with the uncivil route and dismiss any opposing arguments on my end as "benighted nonsense" instead of actually addressing them. I don't really need to say anything more considering your "response" is yet another perfect example of WP:EMPOWER and your previous "arguments", especially the ones on my talk page, don't help your case at all. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

But I will bow out now, I have had my say, and this is entering into tendentious territory (as well as possible bludgeoning). Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Can we please not comment on users, either ignore them or report them. Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, one of the ones they're atempting to add is File:Flag of the Mughal Empire (triangular).svg, where the description is "Reconstructed design of the Mughal alam, or banner. Sketch is Own work based on File:One of six figures from the Mughal emperor's ceremonial procession on the occasion of the Id..jpg. There's also the line "This SVG coat of arms includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this coat of arms File:Fictional flag of the Mughal Empire.svg. Note that stuff there, "own work" and "fictional". These flags are fan-made creations loosely-based on real-world visuals. Zaathras (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 January 2023

Change Warren Hastings was appointed India's first Governor-General

to Warren Hastings was appointed Fort William's first Governor-General,

based on Governor-General of India, the position didn't exist until 1834 SKAG123 (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

✅ Done.Chanchaldm (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why

U gotta add it 49.204.239.163 (talk) 05:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Add what? Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Whitewashing British cruelty and massacres

This article has done a great job of whitewashing British cruelty and massacres they inflicted on the local population and on the Mughal family. I am amazed how one-sided it is. There is not a single mention of how the British had the emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar blinded and shipped him off to Burma. There is no mention of how they murdered the emperor's sons in front of his own eyes. Nor is there a mention of how they massacred the local population that had risen up against the atrocities of the British. There are tons of documented works on the violation of human rights and how the British violated rules of warfare and committed crimes against humanity. 2600:4040:46ED:DE00:2DC9:8556:D574:B365 (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Without sources we can't add any of this (read wp:rs and wp:v. But we do mention "British forces were followed by general massacres." and "Another notable atrocity was carried out by General Neill who massacred thousands of Indian mutineers and Indian civilians suspected of supporting the rebellion" so maybe you just need to read the article. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that you mentioned "crimes against humanity" and "violation of human rights" but back then there was no geneva convention or hunan rights convention. Crainsaw (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Muslim

Is the addition of "muslim" to various images that make no mention of religion kosher? See additions here. @Mydust and Fowler&fowler:--RegentsPark (comment) 06:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Also @पाटलिपुत्र: since I just saw their comment on Mydust's talk page. --RegentsPark (comment) 06:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes those additions seem gratuitous.

PS. The British were a little ‘’fearful’’ of the Muslims of the North-Western Provinces and Oudh after the rebellion, having experienced them to be formidable opponents. It was one of the reasons for post-Rebellion recruitment for the Army taking place farther west among Baluchis, Pathans, and Sikhs. It was also one of the rationales offered for the Indian censuses (the first in 1871) I.e. the British wanted to know how many Muslims there really were in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The additions you are talking about solely apply to the images depicting the cavalry regiments, 75% of which being described as composed of Indian Muslims of various castes: "In the Bengal Army, Hindustani Muslims dominated the cavalry, while the sepoy battalions were mainly recruited from the Rajput and Brahmin communities"[1] "Company's Bengal Army infantry. which was three fourth Hindu, the vast bulk ot the Bengal Army Cavalry was Muslim; comprising of Hindustani Pathan and Ranghar/KaimKhani/Lalkhani Muslims from modern UP....The 1st and 3rd Cavalry and 2nd Cavalry...these regiments were composed mainly of Indian Muslims."[2] "Three - fourths of the Cavalry branch of the Bengal Army were recruited from the Muslims of various descriptions such as Hindusthanee Muhammadans , Sheikhs , Syuds , Moguls , Pathans , Rangars ( Rajput Mussalmans ) and Afghans"[3][4][5] "most of the cavalry were Muslims"[6] "On april 24 April Sowars of the 3rd Light Cavalry in Meerut, of whom a majority were Muslims."[7][8] Before my edits, the article goes along the lines of "the mutiny began with the outbreak in Meerut by the 3rd Bengal Cavalry", without mentioning their origin. Who were the 3rd Bengal Cavalry? It mentions Sikhs, Purbiyas, Gurkhas and Pathans, but no mention of the descriptor 'Indian Muslim', who probably played a leading role in both the outbreak and leadership of the rebellion. Mydust (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

No no that is not the way to do it. You are cherry-picking, i.e. you are looking for a set of keywords, searching for them on Google and finding the source that best delivers them. In this day and age, you'll find anything. If I want Rohilla, Syed, Pathan, Baluch, ... I can find something or other.

This article is written in summary style and presents the dominant narrative on this topic, i.e. what has due weight, and finessed with additional relevant details from here and there. WP policy on that is in WP:TERTIARY. If the major widely-used undergraduate (or first-year graduate) texts do not place emphasis on these distinctions, then we can't do so in this article, although we can in more detailed articles:

F&f's reading list

Tertiary

• India under Colonial Rule 1770–1885 by Douglas Peers
• "Consolidation of Dominion, Illusion and Reality: 1857" in Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy by Judith M. Brown,
• A Concise History of Modern India by Barbara D. Metcalf and Thomas R. Metcalf
• A History of India by Peter Robb.
• India and South Asia by David Ludden

(Youl'll have to look up the publishers from Google)

Secondary

• The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination by Gautam Chakravarty
• The Last Mughal and the Fall of Delhi, 1857 by William Dalrymple
• The Great Fear of 1857, Rumours, Conspiracies and the Making of the Indian Uprising, Kim Wagoner
• Indian Muslim Minorities and the 1857 Rebellion Religion, Rebels and Jihad by Ilyse Morgenstein Fuerst
• The 1857 Indian Uprising and the British Empire, Jill C. Bender,
• The Indian Uprising of 1857–8. Prisons, Prisoners and Rebellion by Clare Anderson
• The Peasant Armed The Indian Rebellion of 1857 by Eric Stokes, edited by C. A. Bayly
• The sepoys and the company tradition and transition in Northern India, 1770-1830 by Seema Alavi
• Between Mars and Mammon Colonial Armies and the Garrison State in Early Nineteenth-century India by Douglas M. Peers
• The Year of Blood Essays on the Revolt of 1857, by Rudrangshu Mukherjee
• Empire and Information: Intelligence gathering and social communication in India 1780–1870 by C. A. Bayly
• Indian Society and the making of the British Empire, by C. A. Bayly

(Please don't add anything in this subsection)

Discussion continued

I don't have much time now. But listed above are some tertiary and secondary sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

PS You are aware that the cavalry was a small part of the Bengal, Bombay and Madras armies. See last table in the military section of Company rule in India shows that it was never more than 15 per cent, if that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

PS @RegentsPark and Mydust: I have removed the pictures added by Mydust and the gratuitous mention of "Indian Muslim" that does not appear to be supported by sources. The Muslims did bring horsemanship to the subcontinent in the form of swift-horse cavalry, mounted archers, and superior strategy shown for example by their definitive victory over Prithviraj Chauhan in 1199, and their mostly unchallenged rule for five hundred years thereafter, but that is not relevant to this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857

Moved from User talk:RegentsPark Hello, I saw your revision on Indian Rebellion of 1857, and I wanted to ask why it's a problem of including the names parts before the detailed parts. Usually, articles that have other names of the topic will include sentences about having different names in the beginning part of the article. Other than that, I fixed changes such as the British EIC starting in India during 1600 CE, and not 1612. Thank you! No2WesternImperialism (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We do, second line of the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• (ec)@No2WesternImperialism: The names are better discussed at the end of the para, once the subject has been properly introduced. I had also noticed that you dropped the term "contested". I'm not sure if 1600 is the correct date for the EIC presence in India. Queen Elizabeth granted the charter in 1600 but their presence in India starts with their first factory which was later. I looked at the cited source and it doesn't seem to say when that was but, if I recall correctly, 1612 is about right and is probably in the John Keay source. About your re-revert, as a general rule, if you're going to get into an edit war, you should post a comment in the article talk page first (FYI since you're a relatively new editor). RegentsPark (comment) 14:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  I understand, but usually the orthodox way of introducing a subject is by saying their other names, for example, the Netherlands says informally Holland right in the beginning. No2WesternImperialism (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  In the case of the Netherlands (and lots of articles) they have a very brief "also" of only 2 or 3 words. It's important the reader can see in the first line that they're in the right place, for many articles. In this case, it is a longer, more complex discussion about how the event has been understood and portrayed - it is not really about orienting the reader to alternative terminology, so much as it is about opening the subject of varied views on the war.

  In any case there is no hard rule that other names have to be there in 1st line. Sometime, even when it is just alternate name, these are given in a footnote, to avoid cluttering up the first line. See MOS:ALTNAME. As others object, you should return it to its earlier state, while discussing. 203.1.80.1 (talk) 02:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with RegentsPark. In this case, the long list of alternate bolded names is clutter that hinders the reader from learning what the rebellion was rather than what it has been called. Nomenclature shouldn't be prioritized over substance. Better to move the alternate names to the end of the lede para, as before, or perhaps even to a Nomenclature section which can be linked from the lede sentence (say, as in "The Indian Rebellion of 1857, known by several other names, ...") as suggested by MOS:LEADALT. Abecedare (talk) 18:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Please return the lead to the way it was. You made a bold edit. It was reverted and other editors have expressed their belief it should remain as it was, which is a version that goes back a long way. To change it, it is up to the editor who wants the change to gain consensus. It should be as it was before, as WP:BRD would suggest. 203.1.80.1 (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Until consensus changes we keep the stable version. Slatersteven (talk) 11:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please add War Memorials

It could be a section with list of major war memorials or a paragraph in a legacy section. Eg. add 1857 War Memorial at Ambala. Thank you. 119.74.238.54 (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)