Talk:Charles James Napier

message: I reverted an edit by Ravenswing which removed a sentence stating that Lady Sarah Lennox was great-grandaughter of King Charles II.  This is an assertion supported by her father's page: Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond (which states"Charles Lennox, 2nd Duke of Richmond, 2nd Duke of Lennox, 2nd Duke of Aubigny, KG, KB, PC, FRS (18 May 1701, Goodwood, Sussex – 8 August 1750, Godalming, Surrey) was the son of Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, and a grandson of King Charles II.", and by her grandfather's page, Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond (which states "Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, 1st Duke of Lennox, 1st Duke of Aubigny (29 July 1672 – 27 May 1723) was the illegitimate son of Charles II of England and his mistress Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth."), as well as by an external link from that page (  ) and Charles_II_of_England#Issue and Descendants_of_Charles_II_of_England.  This is fairly well-documented, I believe.  If the question is one of legitimacy, that can be addressed in the article, but the blanking of verifiable facts is unhelpful. - LeeNapier (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Genealogy Edit

message: It seems that Napier did not utter the famous line. It was a submission to Punch more than a year after the event, made up by Caroline Winkworth, a teenage schoolgirl. --Jumbo 07:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peccavi 

message: It is said that James Napier actually discovered Karachi and once at the beach he said: "O Karachi! You are the Jewel of the East". HOw much of this is true?202.163.100.62 11:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: =======================================

message: Article needs more information on his early career, particularly his involvement in the Peninsular Campaign. Drutt (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Early career

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Charles James Napier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040905142913/http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk:80/churches/royal_garrison/napier_c.htm to http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/churches/royal_garrison/napier_c.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @Soham321: The Napier quote is still in the article. I have reworded it to better match the source. It does not fit in biography section, is better as a separate section just like "Views on subduing insurgencies". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please check the source and decide if "ascertained" or "judged" is supported? @Soham321 is edit warring over it. I see support for "judging" in the third line 2nd para, middle of page 35. I also intend to add a section on slavery from the same source, as it is as due as the section on sati. Please double check my wording if and when you have time, and refine/add where appropriate. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

text: The source (which is available online, BTW, just follow the link https://books.google.com/books?id=d84BAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA35#v=onepage&q&f=false) actually uses the word "judging", like you say. There's not much else to go on. That paragraph is the only mention of sati in the entire two volume account of Napier's time in Scinde. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: @Ace-o-aces2: Thank you for the crosscheck. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Napier on sati, etc 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles James Napier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040905142913/http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/churches/royal_garrison/napier_c.htm to http://www.memorials.inportsmouth.co.uk/churches/royal_garrison/napier_c.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Section Peninsular war, we currently have:
::"After an agreement between Ney and Napier, the latter was released on a convalescence leave at home for three months, under parole to return to Ney's quarters wherever he was on the first of July 1809.[5] ¶Napier volunteered to return to the Iberian Peninsula in 1810 to fight again. . . . ."
:The paragraph break elides a ≥9-months gap during which, by the terms of his parole, Napier should have returned to captivity, and seems to imply that he did not. Is it possible to clarify what did in fact happen in this period? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.32.223 (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I came to this talk page to ask the same question.  Breaking parole was (AFAIK) a very serious offense in those days and gentlemen simply did not do it. (Ninety years later, Churchill was accused, wrongly, of breaking his parole during the Boer War and that accusation was much used by his political opponents.)Cross Reference (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parole 

message: See WP:QUOTEFARM and User:Sitush/CasteSources#Writings of British Raj administrators instead of frequently edit warring to restore the section. desmay (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Quotes