Talk:William Stephen Raikes Hodson

message: This kind of remark is unnecessary (and why didn't you sign it)? Say what you think is wrong with the article in detail, or make constructive changes, but don't spray insults around. It's childish. Sikandarji 08:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: What do you expect? This article has clearly been taken verbatim from the 1911 Britannica and reflects the prejudices of the time. If you read it carefully it actually makes it pretty clear that he was dishonest, and points to at least some of his crimes. As far as I can see Hodson was borderline psychotic, like a lot of men who make their reputation in times of extreme violence. Perhaps the wikipedian above could start cleaning it up? I've done what I can. Sikandarji 18:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do something about it then

message: Here's a different perspective on Hodson, for those who are editing this page. Hopefully I'll get to it myself soon enough.
http://www.geocities.com/hodson_of_hodsons_horse/hodsonofhodsonshorse.htm ramit 13:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: Follow the links to the "King of Delhi" too .... according to that the sons were killed as a spectacle and they were not shot  Victuallers 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian Links

message: "Abu Bukr, heir-apparent to the throne, had made himself notorious for cutting off the arms and legs of English children and pouring the blood into their mothers’ mouths."
What in God's Name is that non-referenced snippet of trash? I'm deleting it. If you can find a reference for it then add it back. Otherwise, DO NOT. Thanks.
Hmm. Anyone interested in the may such instances where some of the earlier and later Mughal and other 'Asiatic' potentates were viewed within such biased/trumped up, 'Orientalist' perspectives should certainly also refer to Edward Said and William Dalrymple. Hodson's own activities werent very salubrious either, s suggested by both this article and cconfirmed by later historians. 39.54.207.195 (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why has no one edited this nonsense? 

message: Hello, made quite some few edits to this article and added various refs/citations of an historical nature, hopefully balanced, to try to improve the overall work. It still requires a fair bit of work.Regs, Khani100 (talk) 17:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: "Accordingly in May 1848 he liaised with his brother Rev. George Hodson, in England, to send all the cloth, rifles and Prussian-style helmets required."
In fact, in May 1848 Hodson only asked his brother to acquire a "brace of good helmets", that is one each for himself and Lumsden. He asked for something like the "light, leathern helmet in the Prussian service... which is light, serviceable and neat." George Hodson makes clear that those he procured were not a success. On their arrival they were pronounced 'maddening.'
George Hodson claims that in 1848 he was asked to obtain 'drab' cloth for 900 men and 300 carbines. He may not be an entirely reliable witness. The timeline of his memoirs seems somewhat compressed.  The Guides at that stage only comprised 1 troop of cavalry and 2 coys infantry. The Corps did however expand to more than double that size the following year. It may be the order of cloth had to be amended, hence the delay in delivery.
It's not clear when the cloth from England arrived.  Lumsden was still waiting in February 1850.  George Hodson states when it did arrive it was "satisfactory" - unlike the helmets. It appears that this expensive experiment was not repeated and that subsequently cloth was acquired locally and, according to tradition, dyed regimentally.
There are few contemporary references to the first khaki uniforms of the Guides. Lumsden wrote of his intention to dress them in suits of  "mud-colour" in late 1849 and in March 1850 Hodson referred to his "rough and ready boys with their dirt-coloured clothes."  The latter was probably  a reference to the men's own clothing dyed locally (In notes written much later, in 1861, Lumsden indicated that men on service were allowed to wear their own 'native pyjamas' as long as they were "dyed the colour as the uniform").
The officers were apparently also wearing some form of improvised khaki at that stage since in February 1850 Lumsden reported that Sir Charles Napier, the Commander-in-Chief, on a visit to the Punjab, "looked at us both for a minute and then remarked. “Yes, it’s not a bad colour for work.”"
JF42 (talk) 08:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prussian-style helmets 

message: This article is terribly biased towards the Bristish POV. There are plenty of egregious examples, such as talking of "celebrated action in British 19th century annals", saying that the emperor "eventually died peacefully of old age" (when he had been sent to exile after executing his sons and grandsons), or the legacy section with three long quotes of British men calling him a hero and a throwaway comment saying that in India he's more remembered by his "excesses". Seriously, this article is painful to read.--RR (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Systemic bias

message: I have examined this article while in the process of assessing its rating and the problems with this article first noted in 2007 still persist here. Consequently I have re-rated it as Start class. It needs serious work.Exemplo347 (talk) 23:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias / POV issues still present