The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days)
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal articles
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
No company and crown both were different. The rebellion was not against crown but was against East India company rule, their was indirect rule of britain before rebellion. After rebellion the east india company rule ended and lead to start of direct crown rule from British Empire.
It's like saying during American revolutionary war, it was British victory as colonizers or patriot forces were also majority british. It's misleading.
You can write in result: End of company rule in India.
Beginning of British Raj or direct crown rule. It's accurate
What? Sorry that makes no sense, the Company was British, many of the troops were British and they won. It was a Brirsh victory. Butr this is all I am going to say, your argument makes no sense. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy company lost all of India administration to British crown. Are you some joke sitting here without knowing a little bit of history. I have done MA in Indian History. One more thing is wrong and pretty sure you also don't known it The main cause of mutiny was not land taxes etc they were indirect reasons but the main cause of the rebellion was a fake rumour that the company new cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat which lead to outrage amoung both Muslims and Hindu soldiers and they refused to open it with mouth after which they killed their British officers and marched towards delhi to meet shah jaffar. It is nowhere mentioned in here too. If someone went to give government exam by reading this Wikipedia page he will fail all the questions😂 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "result" parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict is restricted in what it can say. To quote from the template documentation "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are fighting here like small child British won... British won... and here I am like fool trying to correct this page for those people that prepare for government exams from Wikipedia.
First You give me the source that it was East india company victory because this rebellion was against the company rule and which dissolved. Which effectively means Indian victory as the rebellion/war cause was fulfilled the company rwas overthrown and ended permanently. If company rule didn't end then it was India lost the rebellion.
But I am not immature like you over fighting who won, who lost
You're statements are factually incorrect. The EIC was mainly comprised of local Indian troops, that is not even accounting for the princely states. There is a distinction between the EIC and British Empire since it was a charted company allowed to raise its own army. Rancid Boar (talk) 03:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read a book instead of banging it on your head. The EIC was predominantly comprised of mercenaries. There were more other European diaspora than British, which were all outnumbered by the number of Indian sepoy that worked within it. Rancid Boar (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A large number of scholarly books are referenced in the lead. Please explain cogently what your claim is. If your reply is intemperate, as your last one was, you risk getting no response at all, and in the face of repeated offence, WP restrictions and penalties. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm mentioning his reply to this thread. The EIC was largely comprised of Indian soldiers. That's a fact mentioned in the references themselves. What are you talking about. You don't have a response bc you have no ground to stand on. Rancid Boar (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change “ …. as well as the smaller ones of Rajputana, did not join the rebellion, serving the British, in the Governor-General Lord Canning's words, as "breakwaters in a storm".[15]” to “including smaller states consisting of Rajputana, similarly had not directly participated in rebellion under the British , something that Governor-General Lord Canning mentioned to be “ breakwaters in a storm” providing evidence to show to many officials it was seen that Britain had been suffering from immense pressure without the support of its allied princely states” ( The reason for the change is that the way the orginal is phrased it’s more of a quick interpretation with a quotation thrown in to provide evidence without starting the reason - needs to be cleared up. Tetrach (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not meet the criteria to edit this page,so I am making suggestions here.
There are some or atleast one image of the war or atleast aftermath of a major battle by Felice Betao , a photograph of the aftermath of the mascare of 20,000 rebels is shown.
A, that picture is already in the article and does not show a massacre.
B, We discuss its name in the article, and may disagree it was a war of independence, some argue it was just a mutiny etc etc (or read the archives for every possible argument on this topic).. Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be a mutiny if local kingdoms and landlords were involved?
So does rebellion (sorry by the way I misunderstood what you said "From rebellion to mutiny to war of independence"). It can be argued they are in fact almost the same thing, with an uprising being a smaller and less effective version of a rebellion (which does not seem to apply here). Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change
“months prior to the outbreak of the rebellion was the General Service Enlistment Act of 25 July 1856. As noted above, men ..... "
To
"months prior to the outbreak of rebellion was the passing of the General Service Enlistment Act on the 25th July 1856 (5) . As noted above , men ...."
At(5) there needs to be some description of how this had an affect rather than simply mentioning legislation , as I dont have enough knowlegdge behind the topic and therefore want to learn more I feel the grammar here needs improvment but I cannot expand on the Act itself Tetrach (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might be missing something but we say (currently) "A major cause of resentment that arose ten months prior to the outbreak of the rebellion was the General Service Enlistment Act of 25 July 1856."". Slatersteven (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: The reference states, "