Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 6

message: someone put that the ottoman empire took control after the rebbelion and muhamid was a commander so i took that part out. if anyone has any objections than please explain.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 02:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  i fixed something 

message: Either include all 20 states aiding the Brits in the Infobox or mention none at all. On what parameters were Nepal and Kashmir more independent Jos? In fact, they were simply more subservient... DemolitionMan (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  So were the likes of Jhansi and Oudh. Should we include that on the other side? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: The original question WAS/IS: HOW ARE NEPAL AND KASHMIR MORE INDEPENDENT THAN the rest of princerly states aiding the British? GOOD GMT MORNING. The argument simply means, EITHER NAME ALL, OR NAME NONE. Or does the British Crown want to use Wikipedia as a plaque to be rewarded to the most loyal supporters? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .Deposed rulers of Jhansi & Oudh are different from EXISTING RULERS/STATES aiding British. Or do you mean those aiding were also deposed, you mean Nepal/Kashmir were directly under EIC control and a king/PM struggling to come back to power; in which case they should rightly be mentioned seperately since they are not represented by 20 Princerly states aiding the EIC. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: God, give me a break from SAUL DAVID, the world's only historian left.  I have CITED WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING MYSELF. If Saul David or Malleson chose to reward the MOST LOYAL SLAVES only, it is neither MY problem, nor Wikipedia's. I am only adding the remaining 20 names (in fact I am surprised, you should be happy that your POV is supported further that the rebellion was all illegal/bad/hindu-muslim nationalist bla bla bla, even at the cost of WP:NPOV policies). While adding the names, I have cited the examples of two states FROM WIKIPEDIA ITSELF. Now find me a Saul David that negates those citations. (Alternatively you may chose to go to those articles and delete what I cited, as you have done in past with Devil's Wind; to maintain your one-up-man-ship.) IN BOTH CASES, THE RULERS PROVIDED THEIR OWN ARMIES TO SUPPORT EIC AND IN ONE, THE RULER RANDHIR SINGH WENT ALL THE WAY (SOME 1000 KMS) TO FIGHT IN OUDH - THE SAME PLACE WHERE THE PROUD GURKHA BECAME YOUR PERSONAL FAVOURITE (ONLY 300 KMS FROM NEPAL). If you do not have books, it is not my problem. In any case, you have so far used only one book - by Saul David, The God. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia and other wikis sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation, are not regarded as reliable sources The MOST OUTRAGEOUS COMMENT OF YEAR award goes to this. You cited for Mewar, from Wikipedia and that would do? Reliability definition is quite selective for you. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include all 20 states 

message: "7 Indian princely states,deposed rulers of Oudh, Jhansi and smaller states in region,"
Can we have a list of these "Smaller states in region" as the term seems rather vague.
Sorry forgot to log in, [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were hundreds of (more like) villages in the central and northern India which had Zamindars given the title of Rajas, thereby making the villages themselves, states. One such Raja from Manda was an ancestor of VP Singh ex-prime minister of India. Many of these so-called states, were aligned with rebels and is evident with many sources (even British). Now since Nepal & Kashmir are considered to be named seperately IN THE INFOBOX, may be we need to start putting ALL SUCH NAMES there eventually making the infobox of Wikipedia-record size. Unfortunately, I cannot put my own village's name since my own family as Zamindar's were aligned to British, but yeah Rav Ram Baksh Singh (one of whose kins was the MP in previous term from Unnao) can be mentioned and I would provide UP tourism & other sources for Baksar in UP. I am sure if I get time, I can get up to 100 names there in the infobox a la Nepal/Kashmir on either side unless Wikipedia allows victor countries to decide the names in Infobox. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This description of the state of the Indian countryside is important enough to warrant inclusion in the text of the article, in my opinion. People seem at the moment to be spending their lives in a sterile edit war over the contents of the information box. If it was left to me, the Info. Box would contain only "East India Company" and "Rebels". Where the actions or allegiance of a given ruler (e.g. of Nepal or Jhansi) was important to the outcome or to local events of moment, it should be properly discussed in the text. HLGallon (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Re: Was Manda allied with the Rebels or the British?  Obviously. ALL those who aligned with the British gained prominence (just in line with your attempts to give prominence to the big loyals like Kashmir & Nepal on Wikipedia). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

text: did Patalia fight any foreign wars, did it maintain any embasy’s with other nations? Bravo! India was a member of League of Nations long before 1947. So would you accept the fact that BRITISH CROWN was an ILLEGAL OCCUPANT of the country? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who aided the rebels 

message: I'm wondering about the other constructive editors views on this- is the hindi title really nessesary? To the majority of people on wikipedia its just a few scribbles and means nothing. Of course hindi has its own name for the war but this isn't an exclusivly hindi thing- what is the wikipedia policy on using foreign titles as well? I suspect its meant to be just for stuff like the names of people and places where the one true version is meant to be written that way. With this though...well its a historical event, not a actual 'thing' and hindi is not the only language that has a name for it. --Josquius (talk) 17:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi text 

message: See WP:V specifically WP:SOURCES "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This means that other Wikipedia articles can not be used in citations.  --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources in citations