Talk:Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton

In 1864 he was transferred to the Greek court to advise the young Danish Prince.
Oh, dear. This is beyond pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.124.83 (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Untitled
see also Talk:Owen Meredith

Famine in India
"The British Created an Indian Holocaust, by Kathakali Chatterjee, University of Wisconsin July 17, 2007". Can anyone tell me where this can be found? Since I did not find this text I have some doubts about this source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.19.174 (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This stub should at least mention Lytton's role in famine relief policy. I know little about Lytton, but I do know enough to know that an article on him that fails to even mention the matter is absurd. See Famine_in_India.-- Zantastik  talk  01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree to that. But what has been written now, is so little that it is absurd, too. Robert Bulwer-Lytton was the main responsible for something that Media in India calls "British-India Holocaust" and murdered at least 29 Million. The fact that Britain refuses to deal with her past, does not mean it never happened. It is actually as well documented as the Armenian Genocide by Turkey (who denies her Genocide, too).

I think when you write in a Article about a historic figure like Lytton, who has caused so many deaths, a sentence like

"Lord Lytton arrived as Viceroy of India in 1876. In the same year, a famine broke out in south India which claimed between 6.1 million and 10.3 million people. [1]"

this not only mocking the event and millions of dead, but it is also trying to belittle and whitewash one of the world's biggest Genocides.

Saying a famine "broke out", is simply untrue. Under Lytton's reign there was actually a surplus of wheat in India, means, India had more food than necessary. Not a single Indian would have had to die. The famine did not "break out", Lytton made it. I think it is very strange, to write an article about Lytton and completely trying to keep the fact under wraps, that it was him, who is the main responsible for this Genocide of at least 29 Million people.

I ask you to change it, until then i will have to mark the article as "disputed". Saying one sentence like "a famine broke out", instead of saying that in fact Lytton and the British Government caused it, and then trying to move on while keeping the truth under the carpet, is not acceptable. It is like writing in an article about Hitler, "he was not really fond of Jews", and then move on. That's not the way to deal with history.

My article about the truth about this Genocide has been labelled as "being considered for deletion", because some British people apparantly do not like their history to be revealed. However, it contains all necessary facts about Lytton's role in this Holocaust and all facts are verifiable. But as long as my article, containing the truth, is "considered for delition", this one here has to be even more. Mine does not suppress any facts, but this one here does.

your sincerely

PeterBln (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Shrieking 'Genocide' repeatedly (capitalised each time, for some bizarre reason) does not prove that you even know what the word means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.124.83 (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

New file File:Edward Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton by George Frederic Watts.jpg
Recently the file File:Edward Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton by George Frederic Watts.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 10:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

NPOV issue
"His tenure as Viceroy was extremely successful" is a claim that inherently implies a particular point of view. "Was seen as successful" could work, but by whom?

It isn't appropriate for Wikipedia to declare the tenure of an official whose policies caused the deaths of six million people an extreme success, as that's taking a particular side. Ollie Garkey (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)