Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed

Template:Vital article

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2022

There is something cleaned by someone which is inappropriate as Rao Tula Ram name was missing , which was there before 3 days . Rao Tula Fought battle of Nasibpur against Britishers in 1857 with their 5000 men and almost defeated but Britishers atlast open armoured and hence India lost . There was graveyard of Col Gerrad and phillipes who fought at Nasibpur . So it is requested to wikipedia pls edit and make sure that no body delete and edit the reality happens

In Page 400 it is clearly mentioned about Rao Tula Ram action in 1857, Can we have a section for Haryana again? Duke university book https://www.google.com/books/edition/Archives_of_Empire/xtFRtX2PSrwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Rao%20tula%20ram [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansevenuk (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can add it there with Haryana heading. Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2022 (UTC) (This comment was not made by Slatersteven, and was included in the original request, possibly copied from somewhere else. See this revision)[reply]
Is this not a straight up copy and paste of one above? Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified the request Stansevenuk (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should not alter another users posts. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: The original post was not altered, Stansevenuk just copied the format and made his own edit request. Ive gone ahead and fixed the signature to say the correct request opener, aswell as a note. Aidan9382 (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I see some sourcing provided but the change is unclear in this request. It sounds like there has been some previous discussion about whatever changes are requested here but somehow, those changes didn't seem to make it into this request in the form of "please change X to Y". Examples of requests may be helpful if anyone cares to re-open this issue in the future. --N8wilson 🔔 16:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Haryana, a Historical Perspective". Academic. 2017. p. 53.

Put the flag of Kingdom of Nepal

Why are you disrespecting Nepal by not putting a flag on the infobox?? It looks as if Nepal was a village state. Nepal has always been a sovereign country. 27.34.16.71 (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What was its OFFICAL flag at the time? Slatersteven (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

its political causes

doctrine of lapse doctrine of lapse was a method of expansion of british political dominions it was a method started by lord dalhousie ,the doctrine stated that if a ruler of a territory dies without leaving a natural male heir his domninion will automatically pass into the hands of the company . some states falling under this doctrine were jhansi , satara , nagpur. 103.88.217.176 (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

subsidiary alliance, by lord wellesly , governor general of india . the nizam of hyderabad was the first to enter 9in this alliance the alliance was made so trhat the british would help the territories and state if they would follow some rules stated below they would in return helpm them in management and also give them milatry aids . the rules which they had to follow were 1- they had to give som,e sort of money or a part of thier territory for the manasgment of british army 2- they had to kieep a british officialo called resident in their capital all the time 3- they had tpo remove all western officals or pupuls except british wether they atre of any high ppost or noit they had to be removed 4- they had to always take reccomendatuion from britishh before entering in any alliamnce or sort . Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fague and floating ruymours it was believed that the britishers came in india succesfully in 1757 battle of plassey and they would go in 1857 Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
treatment mented to nana saheb nana saheb the adiopted son pf peswhwa baji r5ao 2 was refused the pebnsion oif his fsathetr it wass a great disrespect and a shovck nfor indians specially hibndu becausae he was idol for msawny andvalso with his pebsion he deid manhy good works Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
disrespectc shlown tio baghadur shah 2 it was stated that his succesors willl not live in the uimnoetrial poalace and secondlt they woulda alspo naot get the imperail titkles liuke kinf Futureorientedguyduh- (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What edit do you wish to make? Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

@Slatersteven: Why have you been constantly reverting my entire edits even though your only complaints are with me removing Victoria from the list? Wouldn't it be more efficient to simply just restore the content rather than starting a needless edit war? Considering other articles on conflicts of the Victorian Era don't include her in the list should give her a pretty good precedent that there's an established consensus against her inclusion in the infobox and it's generally just bloat. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you keep on ignoring my issue. Now I agree (and made the point a while ago) we shous remove all but the major leaders. But Bahadur Shah II was no more a military leader than she was. and arguably Ahmadullah Shah was not a major leader. Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Then I'll remove him too as after reading his article, I at least interpret him as a ceremonial figure as well. I'll remove Ahmadullah Shah as well as he's not even mentioned in the article at all. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

OK, lets go through this again, we can't use any non official or unsourced flags. To have a flag (assuming we need them, what do they add?) it must be an officially recognized national flag. Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's no need for flags. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: If you've read through my talk page, you can clearly see that they are indeed sources and I've already provided sources to them. what do they add? They serve as visual identifiers to generally depict a side and it just makes the article feel incomplete without them, especially since literally every other Military History article uses flags. This is the 4th time I'm asking you to provide your sources and given the fact you still refuse to provide any, let me ask you on why shouldn't they be added? besides your very, very vague statement of "cleaning up garbage". SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 03:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is you, again you, yet again you that needs to provide the reliable sources that the flags were employed in the battles of the Indian rebellion of 1857. Perhaps you need to read about syllogism first, then some first-order logic, or if that is too complicated, at least historical fallacy Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:34, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Over at RSN, two of them, have been declared not RS, the other is in fact deprecated. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No not your talk page, Super, or for that matter under your pillow. It is here that you need to provide the scholarly sources stating that flags were employed in the battles of the Indian rebellion of 1857 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: According to WP:OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources."
You're making an analysis that flags weren't used during the era of the country's reign, therefore you must have sources of your own to back up that claim. This is currently the 3rd time you've attempted to deflect your lack of sources. I'm sorry that you can't be bothered to read my previous discussion with @Slatersteven:, despite you participating in the discussion itself but you'll just have to go back there and read it if you really want sources. Also yet another blatant violation of WP:CIV, wonderful.
@Slatersteven: I've told you to check the sources in the Bhagwa Dhwaj article itself and considering it's not being nominated for deletion, then the sources on that article should speak on how you still fail to provide any sources that they weren't used. Also, keep in mind, you've only said 2, implying that literally all the other sources are good enough, thus making your claims of unsourced flags even more nonsensical and reminder that you yourself have said: The union flag is a verified flag.
No I said 2 were not RS, and the other (your produced 3, Wikipedia is not an RS) was in fact deprecated. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some other sources if you really value sources so much:

SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Note, if you do not make a case here you do not have consensus for your edit. Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

crwflags.com is not an RS
I am unsure what your third source says, as it seems to be about the Indian national flag. So only your first source might be useful, except it gives no dates as to when it was adopted. Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSP says nothing about CRW flags so sorry if I'm having a difficult time believing you. The third source is about how the flag is typically used as a symbol of culture of India. Here's another source describing the Maratha flag, SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is only for regularly discussed sources, I am talking about RSN. It is user generated content. Slatersteven (talk) 13:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The same RSN discussion also mentions that the 2nd initial source is reliable which also contains the other flags I've mentioned. Even then, in the Jodhpur page of CRW, they directly cite a literary source for further reading. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NO it does not, its says its deprecated, one user made a mistake. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only one user says the source is deprecated while the other claims it's a reliable source. Unless they change their mind or opinion, I don't think it's a "mistake" as you claim as such. Another source incase you're wondering. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually multiple users have said they are not RS. They have also raised flag cruft as well. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SuperSkaterDude45, random internet sources are not reliable or sufficient to establish a flag exists, let alone whether it is due for use here. That flaglog link has a flag for Australia almost half a century before Australia even existed. CMD (talk) 14:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: The Australian flag is specifically referring to the Australian Federation Flag which has already been a thing since the 1830s. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know what it's referring to, and the source is wrong in presenting it as the flag of Australia, which, again, did not exist. CMD (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: The Federation Flag was pretty much the only actual flag used at the time to represent the entirety of Australia as some colonies such as Victoria and New South Wales didn't even have any official ensigns and the flag was popular enough to where it was used within the East Coast until the official flag began being used in 1901. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too have read the Wikipedia page on the topic. None of this changes the fact that Australia did not exist, and that there is nothing suggesting the site in question is a RS. CMD (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: But what disqualifies it as a RS besides that one example (that has some historical merit)? I've checked the RSN discussion myself and some of the sources I've cited haven't even been addressed in the talk as the latest message is from Slatersteven. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most things aren't reliable sources. As far as I can see the link is just someone's website. You need to show something is a reliable source. Please read WP:Reliable sources for more info. CMD (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, none of this even matters as the point of this new discussion was at least orginally about a undiscussed and no consensus move by Fowler&fowler before it somehow diverted into yet another discussion about verifiability that will likely go nowhere just like the last talk. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cart before the horse

Before we worry about finding reliable sources for these flags, we need to ask whether we should include them in the first place. Flag cruft is an issue here. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what it adds really. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Blueboar: My reasoning for the inclusion of flags is that typically, military history articles include flags if they are applicable. Even more significantly more controversial wars such as the Yom Kippur War and the Bangladesh Liberation War have flags within the belligerents section of the infobox. Now if we were talking about flags within the commanders section then I'd agree it would be bloated. Unless this war is suddenly so controversial enough to the point where the omission of well documented flags such as the Union Jack (which has been in the article for a solid year), I really don't see why this war in particular should see special treatment compared to literally any other military engagement article. My main issue is the sudden deletion with the justification of "removing garbage" and not really with the verifiability of the flags themselves. See the "Indian rebellion of 1857" section of my talk page for more context. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this article is highly controversial, both its nature, its aims, and even its name. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are many other wars that have similar controversy regarding how they're lead up (World War I, the 2003 invasion of Iraq), the background geopolitics (Six-Day War, Vietnam War) and name (Paraguayan War, American Civil War). All of these articles have flags so again, why should this article get special treatment? SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it should not, but how many of those have a controversy over what flags to use? Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, re-adding the Union Jack, the East India Company flag and the Nepalese flag as they're pretty much the only flags that don't seem to have any controversy over their verifiability. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I will bow out now, I have had my say, and this is entering into tendentious territory (as well as possible bludgeoning). Slatersteven (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories