Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 12

Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857
This section needs expansion. Even though they are very little of historical value, there is some interesting views about it. Like in this article (btw unreliable ref.)

History of Gujarat (1896) by James Macnabb Campbell (p. 434-435) has few interesting paragraphs about it:

Is there anything useful from this paragraphs (its very old British source so have some problems but still)? How important this Prophecies, omens, signs and rumours were? Did they played any significant role? Was it British propaganda to hide the actual causes behind the rebellion? It is circulated to confuse British? Please consider this aspects and find and add information about it in the section. Regards,--Nizil (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest ignoring old British sources. In general, if there is any merit in what they say then modern historians would raise the same topics and refer back to those old sources. It is interesting though so do look for recent sources if you have the time. --regentspark (comment) 12:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indian Rebellion of 1857. 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/20070913225531/http://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2001/nunn.html to http://www.drake.edu/artsci/PolSci/ssjrnl/2001/nunn.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614075639/http://orbat.com/site/cimh/india/bengalarmy1857.html to http://orbat.com/site/cimh/india/bengalarmy1857.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024030853/http://www.newstodaynet.com/guest/210607gu1.htm to http://www.newstodaynet.com/guest/210607gu1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071122162904/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images-1765c.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Images-1765c.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714182441/http://www.jonathanforeman.com/movies/mangal.html to http://www.jonathanforeman.com/movies/mangal.html
 * Added tag to http://www.nationalgeographic.de/php/entdecken/wettbewerb2/forum.php3?command=show&id=3118&root=3052
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208002747/http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1896809,00120001.htm to http://hindustantimes.com/news/181_1896809,00120001.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=micro%2F342%2F91.html
 * Added tag to http://www.eb.com:180/cgi-bin/g?DocF=index%2Fin%2Fdia%2F73.html

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) 04:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved per consensus. — usernamekiran (talk)  20:26, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Indian Rebellion of 1857 → Revolt of 1857 – There is no need to distinguish the revolt by usage of the term Indian. This is the only revolt that ever occurred in 1857 known by this name. Comparison of terms. 31.215.114.73 (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You do see that inn your chart there is a reference to revolt of 1857, in 1820?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Complete coincidence. What I meant to say was the term "Indian" is unnecessary. 31.215.114.73 (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it is an indication your point may not be valid, the phrase "Revolt of 1857" may well refer to other events as far back as 1820. Thus all your graph does is show the prevalence of the term, not how it is used.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Try searching for Revolt of 1857 in search engines. The results are overwhelmingly about this incident. Revolt of 1857 already redirects here. In present day, the term almost always refers to this revolt. If you still hold the view that Revolt of 1857 might be referring to some other thing, Rebellion of 1857 shows a peak in usage in the 1860's, consistent with this Rebellion. My point here is that Indian isn't necessary, there is no need to distinguish this revolt with any other that may have occurred in 1857. I don't know if this is present in all locations, but in my location, searching for 1857 in google gives the first hit as this revolt. 31.215.114.73 (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. What was it? A rebellion. Where? In India. When? 1857. Perfect title.--regentspark (comment) 15:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above, and per the disingenuous nomination which is also trying to rename "Rebellion" to "Revolt" without a rationale or sources.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  16:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the two above. I was going to suggest downcasing "Rebellion" per WP:NCCAPS, but actually it looks like it is almost always upper case in the sources (further confirming that this is a valid and much-used name for the topic). So no change please. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the nomenclature is well covered in the article, the current title appears to be one which manages to be rather less colonialist than its common names for many years (The Indian, or Great, Mutiny), whilst not being unduly anachronistic. DuncanHill (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Obviously. The Indian Mutiny is probably still its commonest name (outside India) in any case. But whatever, "Indian" definitely needs to be in there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Add Barkat Ahmad and Ahmadullah Shah in Belligerents & Commanders and Leaders section (Infobox)
Barkat Ahmad was Sepoy Mutiner and led the army of 6000 rebels in the Battle of Chinhat. It was his forces which began to attack on Residency of Lucknow which resulted in the demise of Sir Henry Lawrence. He was active even before Begum Hazrat Mahal and his son took control of Lucknow.

Ahmadullah Shah was able commander who led an army of 10,000 rebels. He was active involved in the Siege of Lucknow from britishers and even in the Capture of Lucknow by britishers again.

The Wikipedia pages for both these personalities were missing till now, but has been added recently. Given the important roles played by them in the Indian Rebellion of 1857, there name is ought to be mentioned in the Belligerents & Commanders and Leaders section.

Umair (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We do not list every commander who led a field army.Slatersteven (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If I may ask what is the criteria for listing a commander? Currently, there are commanders listed who led smaller armies (no disrespect) than Ahmadullah Shah and Barkat Ahmad. Umair(talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (IST)

Kim Wagner
We should not give undue weight to one writers opinions. This is about the Indian mutiny, not this writers opinion of it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Bank of Delhi
The article contains a photograph with a title "Bank of Delhi was attacked by mortar and gunfire." from Wikimedia. Further information on the Wikimedia page says that "." Despite my best efforts I could not find any information on the existence of a bank with that name in that period, rather at any time in the text available on the history of banking in India on Wikipedia or anywhere off Wiki. I thus request, if anyone could enlighten us about this bank - when was it opened? By whom? When was it closed? Why? What happened to its assets and liabilities? Where exactly in the present Delhi the building is situated? Was it attacked by the mutineers intentionally or was it damaged collaterally? If it was attacked intentionally, then why? Were some Europeans taking refuge in the building? Or did the mutineers loathed the institution itself? If they loathed the institution why? Kindly help in getting the answers. --RezviMasood (talk) 05:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * The building is now the State Bank of India branch on Chandni Chowk, and was formerly Begum Samru's palace. There's a plaque on it with some of its history, which we have a picture of. [[File:Signage - State Bank of India Building - Begum Samru Estate - Chandni Chowk Road - Delhi 2014-05-13 3509.JPG|thumb|right]] DuncanHill (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There is, or was, an inscription in Skinner's Church, Delhi, to George Berresford (manager of the bank), and his family. It reads:

Sacred to the memory of George Berresford Esquire, Late Manager of the Delhi Bank. Sarah Berresford, his wife and their five Daughters, Rebecca, Charlotte, Emily, Agnes, and Ellen, All of whom fell victims to the mutiny of the Native army at Delhi in May 1857. Their remains were recovered on the recapture of Delhi by the British Forces, and now lie beneath the “ Memorial cross" In the Churchyard “ Their Sun is gone down while it was yet day." Jer XV. 9 v» “ The time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that* he doeth God service And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father nor me." S fc John. XVI. 28. This Tablet is erected by the Proprietors of the Delhi Bank as a tribute of respect to the memory of their respected, talented and faithful Manager, and in remem- brance of the urbanity and benevolence so characteristic of their departed friend George Berresford.


 * The Delhi Bank was attacked at about noon on May 11th The Manager, Mr. Berresford, took refuge with his wife and family on the roof of an out-house, and there for some time held the enemy at bay, he armed with a sword, his wife with a spear. Remains supposed to be those of this party were buried on December 31st, 1858.


 * So the bank was known as the Delhi Bank at the time. DuncanHill (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's some more information here and here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much... RezviMasood (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - I enjoyed finding out about it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Kipling reference
I have tried to add this reference to the "In popular culture - Literature" section. Someone else removed it as irrelevant/inadequately attested. So hoping someone more influential here might think it worth re-including.

The Indian Mutiny is referenced in Rudyard Kipling's story "The Undertakers" in The Second Jungle Book. The Kipling Society (http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_undertakers1.htm) quotes Mark Paffard ("Kipling's Indian Fiction" - Macmillan & Co., London 1989) as observing that

"In The Jungle Book (1894) and The Second Jungle Book (1895) we can observe, clinging to the lessons that are absorbed, the dark and treacherous side of 'India' that is only finally dispensed with in Kim. Outside the 'Mowgli' stories themselves, it is most noticeable in the gruesome animal story "The Undertakers", the only work in which Kipling comments directly on the 'Indian Mutiny' of 1857."

Given this Ango-India-American writer's influence on literature, politics, race discussions and more, the unique reference seems notable. I defer, however, to wiser heads. Cteno (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems valid, why is it being removed (to those who removed it)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you could point to the edit where it was added/removed. --regentspark (comment) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for replies. Was working from a different account, and am not easily finding the back-and-forth with the editor/page owner who rejected my small addition. Does the following help? - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indian_Rebellion_of_1857&diff=prev&oldid=654032199 Cteno (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It is this edit by with edit summary, "lacks RS explaining why this is important to the mutiny," which seems to be reasonable grounds for the revert.  That is, one will need to demonstrate that the reliable sources consider this special example to be notable enough for mention in this mutiny article (in contrast, for example, to a more general interpretation, advanced by some, and implied by Paffard's "outside of the Mowgli stories themselves," that the Jungle Books themselves are allegories for the mutiny).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * there are reliable sources that discuss this issue at http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/rg_undertakers1.htm and they can be cited. passages are I think important for the mutiny, because they Kipling reflects wide  British abhorrence and deep distrust of India a half century later. Rjensen (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean mentioning this one story in the Second Jungle Book to the exclusion of the more general, and presumably larger, literature on the representations of the mutiny in the Jungle Books, especially in the Mowgli stories, (see here for books and here for articles) would be WP:UNDUE.  But perhaps that can be added later by someone who is motivated to examine these references for relevance, which is something I have not done.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "The Undertakers" is actually not the only one of Kipling's works which makes direct reference to the Great Mutiny/Rebellion of 1857. His short story "The Lost Legion" centres on a regiment of Native Irregular Horse which mutinies at Peshawar, is driven into the hills of Afghanistan and there is massacred by the Afghan tribesmen "for the sake of its arms and accoutrements". Thirty years later the apparent spirits of the dead mutineers are glimpsed and heard as a British column makes its way by night through the scene of their slaughter. One of Kipling's few ghost stories. Buistr (talk) 03:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

How is Kunwar Singh not a major figure?
I want a full explanation as to how Kunwar Singh is any less of an important figure then the others mentioned there? Almost all major works into 1857 mention him including RC Majumdar work see here:

https://archive.org/details/sepoymutiny1857

The Proceedings of the Indian History Congress also mention his role in multiple articles:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44139859

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44144784

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44145679

Your edit comment was dismissive and not really based on facts since “major figure” is so subjective.213.205.192.130 (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly, your sources, especially the submissions to the Indian History Congress, are uniformly poor. Kuar Singh, the only permanently settled zamindar to have joined the rebellion, had been deprived of his feudal estates by the Board of Revenue.  He certainly became a cult figure decades later, the last of the crumbling feudal order.  I need more time to decide whether he was notable enough for the infobox.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Most commanded armies in the field, and were rulers of cities or states.Slatersteven (talk) 08:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Imo, many zamindars probably joined the rebellion and fought one battle against the company troops for a variety of reasons. They should be recognized. But that should be on their own article pages - there will be too many to list in this article. And definitely not in the infobox which will then become quickly unwieldy. --regentspark (comment) 13:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The info box should be (in my opinion) only for major field commanders and CIC.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

First war of indepenence
To the IP who made the edit:

Please read the late Christopher Bayly. Here he is writing on the rebellion in Indian Society and the making of the British Empire (pp 187-8)

"Rebel proclamations similarly emphasised the need to re-establish the old social order, to give service to artisans and zamindars and beat back the tide of low men of base caste origins. ... Ultimately no coherent ideology or programme existed to channel the aspirations of the rebels. Peasant millenarianism could not provide a common platform even to the extent that it did in the first stages of the contemporary Taiping Revolt in China. There were too many representatives of the old order involved from the start. Nor did nationalism provide a basis since it was from the marginal or declining areas of Indian society that the most prolonged resistance generally came." Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Flag icons
Flag icons should generally be avoided unless they represent the nationality in question (not true in this case) or when it is pertinent to the purpose of the list (that would need to be made explicit). Flagicons, in this article, are particularly bothersome because the listbox then becomes a resting place for all sorts of dubiously sourced flags. I suggest that, absent a cogent explanation as to why the flag is necessary in the infobox, the British Empire flag be removed. (An associated question is whether the "British Empire" was actually a belligerent, but we'll table that for the time being.) --regentspark (comment) 01:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I've removed the flag, also the Mughal Empire (from Delhi to Palam) and British Empire as belligerents. Also, only the Sikhs and the Rohillas, as far as I remember, did any active fighting for the British.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure that is true, I seem to recall that plenty of Sepoy regiments made up the British forces.Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I meant the armies of the princely states which supported the British, "sikhs" (meaning those of the princely states of eastern Punjab) and Rohillas (those of the princely state of Rampur). The Indian sepoys in the EIC armies fought under the flag of the EIC or more likely the regimental colors.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Conveniently for the British, the EIC operated in a gray area. Additionally, the British Empire was not exactly an entity but rather a bunch of colonies, dominions, areas controlled by the EIC, etc. One cannot really say that the Empire was a belligerent. --regentspark (comment) 19:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, sorry for misunderstanding. The empire may not have been a belligerent, Great Britain was.Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Top loading the lead with various rebellion names
I have restored the long standing consensus NPOV version of the lead. We can't top load the text with names (for the rebellion) that are popular in South Asia, names that appeal to the conceit that nationalism and independence were rooted in the public life of the subcontinent before the rebellion, and hastened the onset of the rebellion. In fact, the rebel leaders, as the lead says, produced no articles of faith, no outlines of a new system of governance. This was not the American or French revolutions, even in failure. They seemed, instead, symbols of a fading feudal order. No rebel had spoken out against social injustices in India, such as Sati (bride sacrifice on a funeral pyre), Female Infanticide, nor supported Widow Remarriage. The Indians who had, such as Ram Mohal Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, said nothing about the rebellion. It is therefore best not to distort the history in the lead, which has been vetted for NPOV and reliability. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Quite right . But I suspect that such nationalist texts will constantly reappear. The viable method to nip this anachronism in the bud is to tend to the lead of Indian nationalism. As long as we have nonsense like "Scholars note that a national consciousness has always been present in "India", or more broadly the Indian subcontinent, even if it was not articulated in modern terms" we will always have tendentious folk reappearing every now and then to insert their misguided nationalist idealisations of this 1857 rebellion. For starters, we could synchronise that page's lead with the same P.J Marshall textbook we have on this page's lead. The book has a comment on the existence of nationalism in the pre-British era. The key to protecting this page is correcting the misguiding anachronism on the other. Dilpa kaur (talk) 06:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Broadly agree with these comments. I'm not sure that articulation of an agenda on social justice issues, whether as understood today or as they might have been understood then [the British regime was pretty hard against some, like suttee, while perpetuating others], would actually be necessary to characterize these events as a nationalist movement or even failed revolution of the American or French type. A nationalist consciousness of a modern kind would be sufficient to get it the label of a national rebellion/attempted independence revolution. But there wasn't too much of that, either. That's the key issue. The intellectual class and middle class were too embryonic in India, and heavily a product of the westernizing colonial experience, to be the locus of nationalism. That started a couple of generations later and got really going by 1900. Not so much 1857. Similarly, while I'm not convinced that it's NPOV to characterize the leaders as remnants of a fading feudal order, that's pretty loaded in its own right, it is closer than suggesting it was a new, as a Marxist analysis might similarly put it, revolutionary class. The leaders tended to be a combination of traditional populist type leaders, military rebels, and traditional princes.

I tend to think of their motives as more legitimate than 'fading feudal order' would suggest, but then I have a POV biased in favour of such things. But there's this. The Mughal imperial order had collapsed in the 18c, leaving a subcontinent akin to Europe after Rome- a bunch of older states and peoples reasserting power, new confederations that had fought the Mughals profiting, and Mughal viceroyalties left over charting their own course. Plus other regional foreign invaders like the Persians and Afghans, who left some people behind, and various Europeans. The British [Company] gained power by getting Mughal territorial authority for the lands they held and then playing the same game as the others. They ended up ruling, first behind a Mughal facade and then eventually by themselves.

In 1857, a lot of things were happening. For a very very few, the stirrings of the national idea. For fewer, social issues. But most inclined to such social matters would have had reason to favour the British at that time. For princes, regaining their own sovereignty and the right to replay the contests of the 18th century. FOr some of those also, the Mughal throne had acquired new connotations- an easy powerless rallying symbol for the goal of their own autonomy, a sort of Roman-style historical source of lost legitimacy for the civilization [this can happen to conquest empires in their twilight], and even an early rally point for those who had gotten the modern sense of nationalism.

All in all, the old term Indian Mutiny can only fairly apply to the whole event from a very old-school British point of view. It only legitimately applies to the involvement of Company troops ['sepoys']. They indisputably mutinied. Indian Mutiny or Great Mutiny should be cited somewhere as they were the most common name for so long, but they don't need a lot of emphasis. First War of Indian Independence, a common term in India among variants, is wildly anachronistic. Indian Rebellion of 1857 is a remarkably good, compromise title that maintains a high standard of accuracy. Random noter (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Why not settle for one title, and have a section in the article that deals with the whole titling issue? Valetude (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Because no one can agree on what the title should be.Slatersteven (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

How / Why is Veerapandiya Kattabomman not in the list ?
Veerapandiya Kattabomman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.37.23 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the article on Kattabomman, he died in 1799. This article is about events that took place between 1857 and 1859. --regentspark (comment) 19:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Its seems that in the section discussing attrocities, it tries to paint the dead indians as being all at the hands of the EIC/British army, when large portions of them were actually killed by their fellow indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.148.10 (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We need rs for this.Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

revolt of 1857 it was so good because it showed the power of the Indians to the British that they never showed their faces to Indians again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.242.234 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

How is Mangal Pandey not a major figure ?
@Slatersteven Hello. As you have reverted/undo my contributions to this particular article. So, I want to ask you why Mangal Pandey is not considered a leader by you here....?? The Rebel was started informally by Mangal Pandey only. Mangal Pandey is most notably remembered for standing up against the British rule(East India Company's Rule) and sparking the Indian rebellion of 1857, which went on to inspire the struggle for Independence in India. Many articles has been published on him too considering him one of the earliest rebel leaders of 1857.

"He deserves the honour of the First Martyr which his posterity has given to him." This lines is being taken from a book which you could find it on the below link. https://archive.org/details/sepoymutiny1857/page/n63/mode/2up/search/Mangal — Preceding unsigned comment added by ItWiki97 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Some News Videos has also been produced on him.

I am adding some evidences(like: links) here so that you can assure yourself too. And let me add the name of Mangal Pandey here. http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cujsas/Volume%20I/Volume%20I%20Issue%20I.pdf https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mangal-Pandey https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IZLudwZ-MU https://architexturez.net/doc/az-cf-21705 https://www.hindujagruti.org/articles/15_mangal-pandey.html

ItWiki97 (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)ItWiki97
 * its "Commanders and leaders", not major figures (or Martyrs) (accepting he was one). How could he be a leader, he was dead before the mutiny began.Slatersteven (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Hey, He was not a major figure just. He was a leader who sparked the Indian rebellion of 1857, which went on to inspire many leaders to fight the war against the East Indian Company which led to Indian Rebellion of 1857. If you can't regard him as a leader of the Indian Sepoy Mutiny and just a major figure then it's your fault. Indian Sepoy Mutiny was started by him which makes him a leader and not just a major figure as you are thinking. ItWiki97 (talk) 15:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The mutiny occurred a month after his death. At best he was ONE of the cause célèbres of the mutineers (and in fact he failed to incite mutiny). In many ways it was the disbanded of the regiment that rankled (after all they did not rise), Not Pandys actions.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * As the Columbia South Asian Studies article you link to above (interesting reading, thanks) points out, Pandey may have influenced the rebels in Meerut (that's when the rebellion started) but even that is uncertain. We have an entire section devoted to Mangal Pandey in the article but adding him in as a Commander and Leader seems dubious at best. You would need to provide sources that directly assert that Pandey started the rebellion of 1857, that seems to be contrary to all available historical sources which place the start at the Meerut garrison. --regentspark (comment) 15:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. I will provide it to you. ItWiki97 (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Reaction in Britain
I made these edits earlier because "These atrocities were often used to justify the British reaction to the rebellion" is not supported by the source and the page number cited for this information is 33-34 but page no. 39 which says "In other words although the British used the rebellion to justify an increased level of violence toward the Indians.." which is seemingly irrelevant for the section Indian_Rebellion_of_1857.

Where does Karl Marx describe the story as "false propaganda" and "with no evidence to support his allegation" is supported by the source? I found it better to use his own quotation since the source has only used his quotation, and provided no further explanation. Using our own research to conclude the meaning is WP:OR.

Here I have made the edit recently after noting the points I mentioned above. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So then the source does support the claim that the allegations of violence were used as a justification?Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That has to be supported by the source. Combining 2 different elements to create one is WP:SYNTH. Say what source says. What do you have to say about the rest given you have reverted more than just this part in your recent edit? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So then we can change it to "The rebellion was used to justify the British reaction to the rebellion" for example, not outright removal. AS to the rest, I have no view, but others did object (read wp:brd).Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The source say: "In other words, although the British used the rebellion to justify an increased level of violence toward the Indians, the main difference between British violence before and after the revolt is that the postrebellion violence both acknowledged itself as violence and then presented that violence as a spectacle, perhaps in response to the nature of the Cawnpore massacre which left the British soldiers so visibly impotent." This is indeed broad and is a concise summary of the violent reaction towards the rebellion. It should be re-written (in our own words) then better go to one section above which is Indian Rebellion of 1857. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Except it is talking about home front news paper reaction, and the reaction to that.Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who? The source or the present version of this article? In other words you have clarified why the sentence is not needed on the section "Reaction in Britain" as the source (and the quote I pasted above) is more about accounts and testimonies presented both inside and outside Britain to justify atrocities. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Times, is published in London (for example). This yes its about reaction in Britain.Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That is about reaction in Britain, but not the whole book chapter is. The Times account is at p. 31 - p.33 while the quote I pasted above about "British used the rebellion to justify an increased level of violence" is at p.39, and the whole book chapter is about "Indian Rebellion and the Cawnpore Massacre", than "Reaction in Britain". That's why I said that the scope is broad and it cannot be reduced to "reaction in Britain". Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think its time for others to chime in.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm busy right now. Will say something later, but Aman.Kumar.Goel, you need to fully discuss the issue and gain consensus before changing the text.  This is a controversial issue.  Please, no hurried divining of consensus.  It may take weeks.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

why did the revolt start?
The revolt started because they of the royal gun its ammo shell had the fats of pig and cow which non of the Indians can eat. sorry i am not a profecinal at this but i like typing so yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.203.242.234 (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * We already point this out.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to this article hoping to find out whether this particular claim was true. Even if the cartridges were greased, there were obvious alternatives to pig and cow fat (sheep, goats, geese, etc), and the East India Company was generally careful to avoid interference with the Indian religions. So far as I know, there was never any evidence for the rumour. If so, it is a noteworthy early case of 'fake news'.86.165.228.12 (talk) 22:01, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not really as "false rumour" and "fake news" are not the same.Slatersteven (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

1857 War of Independence
Correct title would be "1857 War of Independence". 19:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC) Prince of Azerbaijan (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, you can give that title but due to convenient purposes European Historians called it as "The Sepoy Mutiny" but Indian Historians called it as "The Great Revolt of 1857" or "The First War of Independence". SubhraChakraborti (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or not, as some Indian historians say the "First War of Independence" was the Vellore mutiny (or some other conflict or rising). No issue with changing it to "The Great Revolt of 1857" if that is what Indian historians also say.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not so sure about that. JSTOR lists 65 examples of "great revolt" for this event but 660 examples of "Indian rebellion" for the same event. This is a much discussed title and we would need solid evidence if it is to be changed. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said "if", I would also add. We do not go with what just Indian historians say, but with what the bulk of RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Flags
, The consensus on this page is that these flag icons should not be included and you're currently edit warring against that consensus (not a good idea). Do note that the mere presence of an image on wikipedia or in commons is not a verification that a flag is either official or semi-official. Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia. That means that everything, and I mean everything, must be sourced. If you can find reliable sources, please provide them here on the talk page, get consensus for adding the flag icons, and then we can add them back. Editing on Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and you should make use of article talk pages rather than edit warring to push your views.--RegentsPark (comment) 13:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

, I addressed this in Slater's talk page but I'll address it here too to get my point across, why is it that literally any other article that is about a war has flags in the belligerent section but this specific article just has no flags and has "consensus" stating otherwise (By the way, please give me a link that explicitly states or implies that.) And I said this before but you can just look at the Template for flagicons for the individual flags and there are usually details and those that are fictional? Just replace the individual princley state flags with the British East India Company flag, it would be too long and counterproductive for me to list out literally every link. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No it would not, you are the one who needs to provide RS showing these are verifiably the flags (see WP:ONUS). Moreover, you did not just add flags, you removed 5 from "5 Princely States", and which seemed to add a number of states.Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * So you just want me to add citations next to the states that fought? That is simple enough and reasonable. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes are a summary that should list only major points, not be an exhaustive list.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was going to add a collapsable list but I don't know how create one, I can simplify it to the 5 states if you want. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Or you can leave it out, as it does not really add anything, moreover we would need to list all combatants, not just hose on one side. This of "Various Rajas, Nawabs, Zamindars, Thakurs, Taluqdars, Sardars, and chieftains", this will make it far too bulky, thus I would say we keep it to major combatants.Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reasonable enough. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's take the flag File:Alam of the Mughal Empire. The description says "own work" "based on a link to an image. There are a couple of problems with this. First, clearly, the "based on" is a fanciful rendering of what is in the image. Second, the mere presence of something in an image (not that this flag is in the image) makes it official. This is not even remotely reliable. What you need to provide is a reliable source that clearly states that a flag was used in an official capacity and that it was used to represent the entity at the time of the event that the article refers to (the mughal empire in 1857 in the Alam example). --RegentsPark (comment) 15:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue with this point, with that logic then like 75% of all current flags on Wikipedia in general would be flat out deleted since some are generally accepcted with little to no sources since most of them are original work and adaptations. I don't know any solution to this -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not make a right, if you have issues with other articles raise it there, not here.15:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)=
 * First of all properly format your previous reply, second of all I wasn't the one making the argument, you were and at this point, you are just grasping straws. If you have no real solutions or inputs, don't bother to reply since I'm not in the mood for this. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * " with that logic then like 75% of all current flags on Wikipedia in general would be flat out deleted since some are generally accepcted with little to no sources since most of them are original work and adaptations.", if this problem exists on other pages (does it provide one example) that is not an excuse to do it here, its a reason to remove then there.Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think that many images in Wikipedia will get removed just for your own standards? See WP:Consensus and WP:No Original Research/Examples. Btw I don't think any of the flags aside from the one you cited aren't real. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Irrelvant, you have made claim provide an example, where do we use "unverified" flags? Nor have I cited any flags, what one do you think I added?Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I thin SuperSkaterDude45 is refering to the Alam, the flag I have cited. Regardless, other than the EIC flag, none of the other flags are remotely sourced. I don't think you've investigated the sourcing at all SuperSkaterDude45 but are just sort of assuming that since we have images, they must be valid ones. Also, a question for, is British empire correct as a belligerent? Shouldn't it just be Britain or the UK? --RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , A example of a false flag being shown in a article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Ensign&oldid=842304910 where there isn't actual proof of the Green Ensign with Great Britain's flag and it was just speculation. I could understand if you were speculartitive over that but if they truly were original work, wouldn't it get deleted since the admins check up on Wikimedia alot. And Slater, they aren't irrelevant, they perfectly match up but you blissfully ignore them. And buddy, I never said you add flags for adding flags, you're just fabricating claims now. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no, a flag won't be deleted just because it is speculative. Files are usually deleted only if there is a copyright issue. It is up to us to make sure that their use is appropriate in articles. In historical Indian articles, flags are a big problem because most of them are "imagined" by the person who constructed them. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And this Green Ensign is the current version, which does not include it.Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It was there for at least three months though, thankfully someone removed it but its still not removed from Wikimedia commons. -- SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So? It is not being used in an article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if its not currently used, at one point it was and for a notable amount of time. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What matters is it was removed by someone as it did not meet our standards for inclusion. At any given time articles contained (for example) outright vandalism, that is not a reason to include bad information on other articles.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is it called "Indian Rebellion" and not "India's First War of Independence"?
All the way at the bottom of the introduction, it is mentioned that this event is commonly also referred to as the "The First War of Independence". This is the case especially in India. It seems to be very Western/Anglo-centric to still refer to this event as a Rebellion, as the UK was literally occupying a country. It would be a massive improvement to either add this sidenote (that the title of this page, is the way the coloniser/oppressor refers to this event, whereas this is not the way the oppressed talk about it), or to change the title altogether. Giel.abrahams (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Giel A. July 8th, 2020
 * Well you could look though the archives to look at the extensive discussion have have had about this. Even in India is is not universally called "The First War of Independence". And we have a whole section on the naming.Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because that's rewriting history. Alfred the Lesser (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because that is what most RS call it for a start. As well as other reasons if you go through the copious talk page arguments about this issue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Protection
This is now getting boring so I have asked for page protection.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

"Not sure this is an RS"
I've just had an edit correcting the source for a quotation reverted, on the grounds "Not sure this is an RS". However, it is the true source for the quotation, which does not appear in the alleged 19th century sources cited by earlier editors. On further examination, I find that the quoted passage is indeed not an RS (for example, it drastically misinterprets an account of a village burning by Highlanders, found in vol. 2 of Montgomery Martin's "The Indian Empire"). I am therefore going to remove the entire quotation, which is regrettable. David Trochos (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * How can it be the true source for a quotation sourced to a 19thC book? So either the quote is not in the 19thC book, or your source is not the source of the quote.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Precisely. As I noted, the now-removed quotation does not appear in its alleged 19th century sources (which are RS) but is 21st century scholarship. Checking actual 19th century sources for one of its central claims, it becomes clear that it is bad 21st century scholarship. David Trochos (talk) 11:51, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Leaders
As I understand it leaders in the infobox is supposed to be only for major commanders, not everyone who led some kind of force in combat. What do others think, and are in in fact guilty of pushing the limits of wp:undue (or would it be NPOV) in having such a heavy list?Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

You are right but the leader infobox already contains names of only those who led the war and were major notable figures. Tamjeed Ahmed (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Commanders and leaders, not major figures should be what is there.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. The list has way too many minor figures in it. Not every local chieftain needs to be included. --RegentsPark (comment) 11:51, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Understandable. I only added the name of Kushal Singh as I thought this was exhaustive list, because even small leaders were mentioned. I am in support of leaving only major ones. Prune the others. Sajaypal007 (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

OK so lets have a list here (and an explanation) of major field commanders.

Rani Lakshmibai Tatya Tope Nana Sahib

Obviously, All three commanded large field armies.

Maj. Gen. George Anson Lt. Gen. Sir Patrick Grant Gen. Sir Colin Campbell

As above.


 * Seems good.Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Then we should also remove all Mirza prince and keep only 1 or 2 names from Mughal Empire which was a minor empire before this uprising. We should restore names like Mangal Panday, Kunwar Singh, Nahar Singh, Rao Tula Ram because they were the leaders and responsible for rallying the rebels for the cause. Mangal Pandey organised the sepoys in Calcutta and coordinated with sepoys in Lucknow and Meerut. Kunwar Singh was the supreme leader in Bihar and eastern UP and kept his region independent for almost a year, and did command a large army. Rao Tula Ram asked help from Shah's of Afghanistan, Persia and even contacted Tsar Alexander of Russia and recruited. Nahar Singh liberated the region from Delhi and Southern Haryana up until Rajasthan border. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Mughal Empire was not a "minor empire". Mangal Pandey was not even alive when the mutiny occurred, so how was he a leader of it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Mughals controlled Delhi and its suburbs only by 1770s. And this is 80 years before 1857. So when did the Mughal empire expand, can you tell about it? And about Mangal Pandey, it is true that he was executed 1 month before the whole gangetic plains rebelled in full force but he was responsible for the events which led to it. In British historiography, it is treated as sepoy rebellion, so shouldn't we provide the name of the most important sepoy? Am I right in saying that you have no objection with including the rest of the names I mentioned? ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The section is for leader, not "inspires". As to the Mohgahl empire, all much of the history (including almost all of the "first war of independence stuff" is based upon the march on Delhi and the attempt to rally behind (or maybe for him to rally in front of) to install Bahadur Shah as the figure head of the upspring (you know, the Mohal emperor?). And silence is not agreement, I just pointed out the obvious flaws. I have said more than once, we shuls only include major leaders, the movers, and shakers. Not every contingent commander.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There were lots of small armies that took part in the rebellion. We should only include those that have been identified by historians of having played an important role in it. Bring sources that support the claim of any individual leader as being significant in the course of the rebellion, and then we can evaluate that claim. Mangal Pandey did not participate in the rebellion so, no, we don't include him as a "Commander or leader".--RegentsPark (comment) 16:58, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Some small names like Mirza Abu Bakr (Mughal Prince) are still there, there is nothing worth written about him on wiki page. Why such an small participant is mentioned in the list of leaders? Also why Mirza Babur is mentioned while on its wiki page it says that he died in 1835 so more than 20 years before the rebellion. Sajaypal007 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Here are sources: Nahar Singh, Kunwar Singh, Rao Tula Ram. So they are absolutely important enough for inclusion. I don't see why these Mirza princes should be included and I still haven't seen a justification to add more than 1 name from Mughal Empire which was a minor empire now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources exist for all kinds of leaders, we have to have sources that say they were major leaders.Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The sources are clear enough about their contribution and role is highly important. Here are some more:
 * "some of the major leaders of the rebellion like Bahadur Shah, Nana Sahib, the Rani of Jhansi, and Kunwar Singh"
 * "Rao Tula Ram was born on December 9, 1825. In 'heroism, valour, patriotism and sacrifice' he can justly be compared with the most brilliant characters of the Revolt of 1857 such as Laxmibai, the Rani of Jhansi, Tantiya tope, and Nana Sahib."
 * ArvindPalaskar (talk) 11:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Can anybody here give detail how is Tula Ram finding mention over Ram Baksh Singh and Beni Madhav Singh who were chief Taluqdars fought in 1857. The revolt was preliminary from Awadh till Bihar except Muslim units which revolted in Meerut, some contribution of local leaders there. Haryana was chief beneficiary post 1857, so on what basis Tula Ram finds mention over Ram Baksh Singh and Beni Madhav Singh. This is very much surprising. RS6784 (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ByTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Rajput+Taluqdars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIhrq9oN7yAhXyjuYKHYw-ADQ4ChDoAXoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20Taluqdars&f=false RS6784 (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It was primarily a Taluqdar revolt in Oudh. The Taluqdar leaders must find mention over Nahar Singh or Tula Ram RS6784 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For Raja Beni Madhav Singh of Oudh https://books.google.co.in/books?id=FCG5hGZ-hJsC&pg=PA208&dq=beni+madhav+singh+1857&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsjuKPrN7yAhVRjuYKHe_HBfQ4ChC7BXoECAQQBg#v=onepage&q=beni%20madhav%20singh%201857&f=false RS6784 (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Another source mentioning Beni Madhav Singh https://books.google.co.in/books?id=T02CC0ihCmcC&pg=PA176&dq=raja+beni+madhav+singh&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj81bv5vt7yAhWn8XMBHYAHBuEQuwV6BAgEEAc#v=onepage&q=raja%20beni%20madhav%20singh&f=false RS6784 (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear all admins, Nahar Singh or Tula Ram should be replaced with him. These were the main Taluqdars of Awadh, this was majorly Taluqdar revolt RS6784 (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Arvind Palaskar, the source given for Tula Ram is from writer Dr KC Yadav, he will glorify his community leader. So there is bias. No other source talks about him as big leader whereas many sources mention Raja Beni Madhav Singh of Awadh. I have given you the sources for that RS6784 (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I request admin to look at Nahar Singh and Tula Ram. They weren't bigger leader compared to Beni Madhav Singh of Rae Bareli in Awadh. RS6784 (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Beni Madhav Singh led revolt in Awadh area till Jaunpur. Major Gall a British officer was killed in the battle. He had an army. He needs to find mention here. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2c9312fKPqgC&pg=PA388&dq=Raja+Beni+Madhav+Singh&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_hZWjwt7yAhUtG6YKHdMFDccQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Raja%20Beni%20Madhav%20Singh&f=false RS6784 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Addition of leaders
Dear Admin The revolt was mostly in Awadh to Bihar except Sepoy mutiny in West UP. It is injustice to others when names like Nahar Singh, Tula Ram over Ram Baksh Singh Bais, Rana Beni Madhav Singh over main driver of 1857.

The book also talk about role of Taluqdar leaders who played major role. url=https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ByTWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA299&dq=Rajput+Taluqdars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIhrq9oN7yAhXyjuYKHYw-ADQ4ChDoAXoECAkQAw#v=onepage&q=Rajput%20Taluqdars&f=false RS6784 (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Beni Madhav Singh led revolt in Awadh area till Jaunpur. Major Gall a British officer was killed in the battle. He had an army. He needs to find mention here. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=2c9312fKPqgC&pg=PA388&dq=Raja+Beni+Madhav+Singh&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj_hZWjwt7yAhUtG6YKHdMFDccQ6AF6BAgMEAM#v=onepage&q=Raja%20Beni%20Madhav%20Singh&f=false There are many sources pointing to the same. RS6784 (talk) 20:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Please check below, the discussion is open with verified information,

Haryanas role in rebel, this should be added, discuss below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddgimata (talk • contribs) 01:16, 18 Feb 2022 (UTC)

Edits on 18 Sept.
If you are looking at the edits that happened on Sept 18, you must be pretty confused. So let me explain what happened. I had changed the 1st para a bit and Slatersteven had reverted my edits with the reason for 1st para only. I explained to him that I'm undoing his revert on my edit because that he didn't check the Doctrine of lapse, and I sent him the message on his talk page. For some reason, Wikipedia prohibited me from simply reverting and I had to use source editing. I let the 1st para remain as it was, and added the doctrine of lapse in a copy-paste. Unfortunately, I had placed it in the wrong section, so it soon got reverted by RegentsPark and I finally added the doctrine of lapse in its correct place. Pardon me for such mistakes. Regards WikiSilky (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, if you are reverted you should make a case here, and not just revert. If you read why RP reverted you, it was not because it was in the wrong place, you need to address what they said.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The doctrine of lapse is already covered in the article and not much needs to be added. Also, your references are poor - britannica is not correct (for example, the doctrine of lapse was not restricted to Hindu states, cf., Arcot) and IndianSaga.com is nowhere near acceptable as a reliable source. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Flags
The flags for the Indian combatants have been here for a while, and thus is long standing content. So are there any sources showing these are real (and not made up) flags?Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As suggested by the other editor, I checked on commons and couldn't find sources. Simpler if they had just done the clicking themselves but whatever. --RegentsPark (comment) 12:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So all very wp:or right now there appears to be consensus to remove them as OR.Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Mangal Pandey
Why there is no mention of Cepoy Mangal Pandey, the first person or the first whistle blower to start this, who stood against British India Company.? 24.114.87.251 (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is we have a section on him [], try reading the article.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Sng Pal (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Flags of Indian Belligerents
Why is there no flag for the Mughal Empire and Oudh in the Belligerents section? I added the ones on their wikipedia pages but someone reverted it saying to make a case on the Talk page. So can the flags be added back? is the flag of the Oudh as found on it's page and is the flag of the Mughal Empire as found on several pages related to the Mughal Empire.
 * Wikipedia is not an RS, we need an RS that says these were the official flags of those nations, and not (for example) someones made up interpretation based on a written description.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, what is an RS? And how do I get a RS? Sng Pal (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * wp:Reliable sources.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

European
. Well, it is true that the source does use "European." It is also true that some contemporary specialist sources on the British era, especially the 19th-century, do use that term once the context is understood. There were many such terms employed in the censuses (which began in the Raj in 1871 but which were preceded by some regional censuses during Company rule). The terms "European" or "English," were used for what is today, "White" or "British." Among Europeans, the poorer ones (such as planters or post-office workers, who didn't return to the UK after their retirements (e.g. the ancestors of S. H. Prater, the naturalist, or Jim Corbett, the hunter, would have constituted "Domiciled European;" those of mixed British and Indian parentage were called "Eurasian." (The latter later came to be called "Anglo-Indians," which however was a term reserved in the 19th-century for "the British in India." Kipling's parents would have been Anglo-Indians, though obviously not "Domiciled Europeans," as John Lockwood Kipling returned to England after retirement. Those are some of the issues.  I've added a footnote.  But for us to use "European," would be dated usage.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:45, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
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) 15:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * India in 1837 and 1857, showing East India Company-governed territories in pink.jpg

Section Haryana
Section Haryana has been deleted, please add it back


 * Why? Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Rao Gopal Dev
No mention of Rao Gopal Dev


 * It is being discussed above, having 15 sections asking for the same edit does not make your case stronger. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Why no mention of northen region hero Rao Tula Ram
please add atleast a paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashi Sharma873 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * See above, we can't have everyone. Slatersteven (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * if not in key leaders, he at least deserve some lines brothers :) , this is least we can expect Shashi Sharma873 (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why any more than anyone else who may have had a brief mention, why not every British Brigade commander, or every man who got a medal? We cannot mention every person who has ever been named in an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * State haryana has issued martyr day on his death aaniversary, he was the leader Ankit solanki982 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Odd as that state has only existed since 1968. Slatersteven (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Best Solution will be to add atleast a paragraph for him, if they think he does not deserve infobox Jaideep thakur (talk) 12:08, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Why, as best he deserves one line. Not enough sources rtalk about him. Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Rao Gopal Dev, Rao Tula Ram and Raja Nahar singh
Someone notorousily deleted the Section haryana please add the same :)Aniket chaudhary12 (talk) 10:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)


 * i dont think rao gopal dev should be mentioned, however we may think about raja nahar singh Jaideep thakur (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Section Punjab
Rebellion in South east Punjab (present day Haryana) is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyapraakash (talk • contribs) 17:01, 7 April 2022 (UTC)