Talk:Jind Kaur

Untitled

For a graphic eyewitness account refer to the following book by neutral Western scholar:

Cults, Customs and Superstitions of India, pp 111-115 , John Campbell Oman, Adamant Media Corporation

http://books.google.ca/books?id=gbuzAxlYFb8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=Ranjit+Singh+Sati&source=web&ots=WDMPOfdhNf&sig=5Q3dT3g0D0DDSqUvr3OPqHAGBWo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA112,M1

Sati in Ranjit Singh's family is a very well known and very well documented fact.

The author of the article needs to provide a credible citation which proves that Rani Jindan was from a Jat family. The evidence suggests that she was not because Sati, which was practiced in her family, is not traditionally a Jat custom. The custom Sati suggests that both Ranjit Singh's and Rani Jindan's families were probably of Rajput origin.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Internet Scholar (talk • contribs) 01:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC) 

--Internet Scholar (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Rani Jindan (1817-1863) seated on a cushion..jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Rani Jindan (1817-1863) seated on a cushion..jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Rani Jindan Aulakh (1817-1863) seated on a cushion..jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• The image on this page has now been replaced by an authentic portrait by George Richmond - Apuldram (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

expansion

In response to the on-page request I have expanded and cleaned up the article. The facts from the previous version have been included, but some information, although interesting, has been omitted if it was not directly relevant to Jind Kaur. Apologies! No offence intended. Apuldram (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Categories

I reverted the edits by Aciram, which removed the category Female regents. Jind Kaur was a regent and anyone searching for a list of female regents would naturally look in that category page. It is arguable that she was never a Female ruler, as the ruler was Maharaja Duleep Singh following the assassination of Maharaja Sher Singh. She was undoubtably the power behind the throne, but it is questionable that such people should be classified as rulers.

In any case, the description Female regent is more precise and correct than Female ruler. Unless there is consensus that category Female regent should be removed, I will restore it. Apuldram (talk) 18:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Jindan kaur character portrayal

Jind kaur character had been demoralized by britishers by comparing her to Messalina.. Messalina was a seductress and a traitor to his own state...however jindan kaur was a faithful lady to his husband and to his country...She did everything to overthrow the British empire from the Punjab but failed...Britishers did everything to defame and penniless her...they stopped her pension and mistreated with her. So kindly stop comparing Jind kaur with Messalina.. AnaamOne (talk) 04:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The article does not compare Jind Kaur to Messalina. It reports correctly that the British feared her and described her as the Messalina of the Punjab.
In Wikipedia we are not allowed to censor parts we disagree with, so your deletion was unacceptable and had to be reverted. Please read WP:CENSOR and note "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers . . . is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
Your deletion also removed sourced material and the cited source. You must not do that without explaining why the source is inappropriate.
The misdeeds of the British and some of the Sikhs are brought out in the article. Apuldram (talk) 09:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Redundant text

The two sections "Imprisonment" and "Nepal days" are partially redundant with each other, with severeal occurrences reported twice. (I myslef don't have time to fix this at the moment, and I have no expertise in the topic.) Acwilson9 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)