Talk:Varanasi

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2024

It should be Hinduism and not Hindu Mythology. There are three instances in this article where "Hindu Mythology" has been used. These are real places and gods that lived in this world in the past and thus it's not right to call this a Myth. VM0717 (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Google what mythology means before you comment this sort of gibberish. Chronikhiles ^(talk) 06:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing people form the infobox

The infobox contains people rather than important places. I suggest removing people form the infobox and replacing it with important landmarks. SKAG123 (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

​I think you mean the "infobox contained [pictures of] people rather than [pictures of] important places". This was discussed previously, see Talk:Varanasi/Archive 2#Infobox images need change for representation. Consensus appeared to be to use the pictures we have now.-- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Mention of the Benares state

The Benares State is mentioned in multiple sources in the body article. in this section where multiple sources are cited. Therefore I think it is appreciate to mention the kingdom in the lead, as i did in this edit.

The Section:

"There were as many as 100,000 men backing the power of the Benares rajas in what later became the districts of Benares, Gorakhpur and Azamgarh. This proved a decisive advantage when the dynasty faced a rival and the nominal suzerain, the Nawab of Oudh, in the 1750s and the 1760s.

Raja Chait Singh of Benares State (r.1771–1781) An exhausting guerrilla war, waged by the Benares ruler against the Oudh camp, using his troops, forced the Nawab to withdraw his main force. The region eventually ceded by the Nawab of Oudh to the Benares State, a subordinate of the East India Company, in 1775, who recognised Benares as a family dominion.

https://archive.org/details/rulerstownsmenba0000bayl http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/b/benares.html SKAG123 (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The particular part you added [1] in green in the following sentence − "Under the Treaty of Faizabad, the East India Company acquired the city through the Banaras kingdom in 1775" - isn't mentioned in the two accompanying sources. They only mention Benaras, nothing about the state/kingdom. The concern is about the particular sentence. Besides, what is it supposed to mean? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

The last sentences of that section state that has multiple citations states that The EIC acquired the Benares kingdom form the Nawab.

The source do mention the Banaras Kingdom

Empire and Revolution: The Political Life of Edmund Burke

page 664

Chait Singh beginning in 1775 forms an important part of Burke's basic case against Hastings.245 According to Burke, this period covered an epoch in which the obligations of Benares as an independent tributary were respected in much the

Page 844

Chait Singh in Benares and agreed to relieve the Wazir of some of his burdens incurred by British pensioners, as well as some of the troops stationed in his territory. At the same time, a decision was made to continue the use of

Therefore I added “through the Banaras kingdom” since the kingdom was acquired as a subordinate based on the paragraph and sources linked above. SKAG123 (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll see tomorrow. @Fowler&fowler: could you take a look? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A few other sources I could find also stated the same thing, although it should be noted that Raja Chait Singh of Banaras' uprisings were sparked by the Second Treaty of Banaras (1775).

https://doi.org/10.1177/23484489231198628 https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaties-of-Banaras Aditya Prakash-080 (talk) 04:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)