Talk:Siege of Seringapatam (1799)

message: Srirangapattanam is the name of the place and not seringapatam.
Chanakyathegreat 16:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have sources that document this assertion? Magic♪piano 14:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Srirangapattana (in Kannada, Srirangapattanam in Tamil) has never been referred to by any other name, Seringapatam included, in any Indian language at any point in time. Can't understand how to source negative examples. -- Fgpilot (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

text: The name Srirangapattana, by the way, comes from the temple of Ranganatha that the island town hosts. This town is the first of three such island towns on the river Kaveri, hosting a temple to this diety, that were built around the 11 century. The wiki page on Srirangapatna has these details. -- Fgpilot (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporary sources (i.e. mid to late 18th century sources) that use the name "Srirangapattanam" would demonstrate that the name was in use then, and not a later coinage.  However, you point out that the name is a Tamil name.  Last I checked however, this is the English Wikipedia, not the Tamil one, so we should arguably use the name used most widely in English.  (See WP:COMMONNAME, especially the section on foreign names.  For a possibly similar case, see Munich, the English name of a German city in Bavaria.)  Can you demonstrate English language usages of "Srirangapattanam" that date to this period?  (Just so you know, I have no particular political or cultural interest in what name is used.  I just happen to sometimes edit mostly historical articles that reference this place, and consensus thus far seems to have been that "Seringapatam" is the name to use in articles of this period.  I have no issue with the article about the place being whatever current use is, but historical uses, as in this article, should use historical names.) Magic♪piano 21:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, Indian leaders referred to this town as Srirangapattanam, even when conversing in English during pre-independence times. Will see if I can get some evidence to substantiate this. Also, this is not just a question of English versus non-English names. The objections raised on such terminologies by "nationalists" or whatever they are called, is essentially along the same lines as the aversion of the Western world to any Nazi terminology being used in public discourse, or for example, the objection against the use of terms like "negro" for a black person, although this term was in public use earlier. Seringapatam is a colonial term and not just an English term. It was a term used only by the colonial rulers, unlike say the term "India" which is more widely used and against which there is no objection. Fgpilot (talk) 06:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

text: "Seringapatam" is an anglicized form and the English spelling varies even these days from the Sanksritized form Srirangapatnam to the spoken form of Srirangapatna. The justification of this spelling for the article is based on the fact that the "siege" itself was largely documented with this spelling. Shyamal (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an interesting source, credible evidence of the name Srirangapatanam being used even in those days. Thanks for the link. I do agree that the "Siege of Seringapatam" is a term in itself, justifying its use in the *title* of this page.. -- Fgpilot (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the source. I agree the 'Siege of Seringapatnam' is a term that should remain the title of this page but as the town itself was referred to as Srirangaptnam, I suggest editing this article to replace the place name. I'm not an experienced editor so happy to take guidance on the way forward. Thanks. Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 11:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Srirangapattanam and not seringapatam 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: I recently removed two sections from the article:
:Contradictions
:Documented history is seen as one sided; by the indian historians as the battle details are all written by the british to portray themselves as heroes. As per local history, Tipu, along with four other bodyguards, killed a record 4,500 British soldiers-about fifteen British were left alive and Wellesley was thinking about surrendering when a British bullet hit Tipu and he fell. The caualty figures hence are debatable lookign at the above statement of the last and valiant amazing effort by Tipu and his four bodyguards.
This first section was recently added to the atricle. It was unsourced, biased and basically nonsense.
:Defeat of General Yaar
:Commander-in-Chief General Yaar Mohammad, one of the Sultan's most capable generals, fought bravely in the Battle of Srirangapatna, but evaded capture by the British Army, after the Fall of Mysore.
This section was also unsourced. BarretBonden (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Typical Indian nationalist nonsense. - 5 men killed 4,500 British soldiers...this is the sort of crap the Nazis came out with during WW2...also, notice how this idiot sourced "local history". What an idiotic goon.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.246.215 (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted sections 

message: I was surprised to see the lack of mention on the killing of a dozen British prisoners prior to the battle. They were apparently killed by having their necks snapped and, some, nails driven through their skulls. Seems a pretty notable event.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.0.3 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing on the killing of British prisoners prior to the battle? 

message: Were they separate events, both describe the killing of Sultan and the troops taking the city yet have different sections.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:8161:C100:C154:2359:F27C:3F54 (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breach vs Storming 

message: Propose bias template be put at top of this article. There is little information on Mysore Troops. Adaptations sections refers to only British books. Sources are unclear (as listed in the article), and there is only one source from India, and its about the cemetery section. Clearly, this article is written from one side only, and until this article includes sources from India, we can't be sure that the information listed is NPOV, or at least incomplete. The top of the article should have something like that listed. GoodandTrue (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, the only mention of the "unrestrained orgy of rape, looting and killing" (William Dalrymple 2019, The Anarchy p 351, Bloomsbury Publishing, London) is under the 'depictions of literature' section. 2A00:23C6:3095:3B01:B506:85D0:8037:D0C2 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion