Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Move of name controversy and national character of rebellion

I've moved the name and character sections to the end of the article. Although the debates encapsulated within them are fascinating, and the discussion productive in terms of producing a good article, I felt that their placement at the head of the article was inappropriate.

To facillitate this, I renamed the "name" section to give it greater clarity in the contents, and - a minor edit - I've emphasised that Sepoy Mutiny is rarely used now as a general term to describe the conflict in the western media. (if used at all, it would probably be lower case, and used to describe individual rebellions by sepoy regiments, rather than the conflict as a whole).

Tomandlu 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most commonly used terms. They should go in the intro. I don't think "Sepoy Mutiny" was ever used very much. john k 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

They "names" issue is addressed adequately in its section. Most Indians know it as the "War of Independence" - "Indian Mutiny" is a biased British POV. (Jvalant 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC))

Jvalant, I understand your concerns (and largely agree - inserting some, but not all, names for the conflict at the top of the article is inappropriate, irrespective of which "side" such names favour), but please don't describe such edits as "vandalism". Tomandlu 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The introduction to an article should give the most familiar names. And who gives a fuck if "Indian Mutiny" is British POV - the British POV is the one that is known outside ths subcontinent, and that name is the way the damned thing is known everywhere else in the world. The general guideline is that alternative common names go in the intro. "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most prevalent names for the conflict. "War of Independence" has not even been demonstrated to be the most common name in India. We shouldn't confuse our readers out of misguided wishes not to "offend" by merely mentioning names that are not actually offensive. john k 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Tempers getting frayed again I see. Whilst I think the title "First War of Indian Independence" is an absurd one, it is widely used in Indian school history textbooks and will be familiar to English-speaking Indian wikipedians (of whom there are a great many). It should therefore be included on the list of alternative names, as should "Indian Mutiny" which, as john k has pointed out in rather forceful language, is the most commonly-used name outside the Subcontinent (though much less widely used in academic publications than it used to be). Sikandarji 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that the article has a section devoted to discussion of the various names and controversies/reasons, can't we just leave all such references to that section? I take the point about "alternative common names", but, in this case, I think there are valid grounds against such an approach... apart from anything else, most articles won't have a section dedicated to the various names Tomandlu 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
We certainly can't do that now that you've moved it to the bottom of the article. I would not object to adding a mention to the term "War of Independenc" or something similar to the introduction. The introduction is supposed to include mentions of all commonly used alternative terms that the reader might be familiar with. I think mentioning "Indian Mutiny," "Sepoy Rebellion," and "War of Independence" would more or less cover all our bases - the other versions are basically derivatives of one of these three terms, or else of the current title. john k 14:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair point, and agreed. I've added WOI... aargh! jvalant is up to his tricks again... sigh... Tomandlu 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This constant vandalism calling it an "Indian Mutiny" which is not used anymore except by a few racists, amounts to Nazis going on the page of the Holocaust and changing it to something they claim to be more "familiar with". Most books sold worldwide call it the "War of Independence", calling it anything else is mocking facts as it is. The issue of names is dealt with in the article. I would think that Wikipedia is also an educational resource; calling it an "Indian Mutiny" in the intro would mean that this name too is acceptable and perpetuating it. I can see why some would think that "Rebellion of 1857" is a neutral title, I don't. But I've to accept it for now. And since this constant edit happens over and over again, it is vandalism and nothing else. (Jvalant 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

This is patent nonsense - apart from anything else, you just removed a reference to it being called "First War of Indian Independence". Secondly, there is nothing inherently racist with regards to the term "mutiny" (I'm not even going to get into your absurd comparison with nazis and the holocaust).
You really are making a storm in a teacup here. I also am genuinely confused - on the one hand (afaik) you are quite happy to permit "indian mutiny" to appear in the names controversy section (albeit with a meaningless and inaccurate comparison), but then supress it when it appears under "common names" - if the name isn't common, why is it listed at all? If it is common, what is your problem? Tomandlu 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
And there was I thinking you'd seen sense at last jvalant. "Indian Mutiny" may be inaccurate in many respects and is not favoured by academic historians any more, but it is not a racist term and it is still very widely used in English language publications all over the world. "War of Indian Independence" is only used in India and Pakistan. A search of the Bodleian Library's catalogue using that as the Title keyword brings up only eight books, all published in India, one of which is Savarkar's (discussed above), one of which refers to an uprising in Tamil Nadu in the early 1800s and another to an uprising in Orissa in the 1820s. Not only does it not have widespread recognition outside India (and no academic credibility within it), no-one can even decide which "war" it refers to. Meanwhile a similar keyword search for "Indian Mutiny" produces 140 titles published all over the world. You are not going to win this argument, and "Indian Mutiny" has to appear in the opening paragraph as the most common name for the Rebellion, alongside your preferred "War of Indian Independence". Sikandarji 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, having the name in the intro perpetuates its use - making it seem like a correct and acceptable term. Having it ONLY in the "name controversy" section shows that while there are many terms used, not all of them are correct and let's the reader come to his/her own conclusion. Secondly, why is the comparison with the Holocaust so absurd? I am not "quite happy" with it appearing in the article at all - however, I do realize that it is a term used by the Brits in colonial times and some people suffering from a colonial hangover till date. Either way, it is just not an acceptable term as it insults Indians. (Jvalant 16:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC))
It would be easier (or at least quicker) to compile a list of why the Holocaust comparison is not absurd, but in the first place, "mutiny" does not impart any particular character to either side - to take your holocaust analogy, it is more like a debate between "holocaust" vs. "genocide". Secondly, as a common historical term, it is not revisionist (not that revisionism is necessarily bad, but the distinction should be made). Thirdly, the comparison is deliberately provocative, implying a similiarity between the two events which does not exist. Anyway, all names are referenced in the naming controversy section, so let's try and let this v. minor issue rest.
Err, by the way was the term "colonial hangover" meant to be ironic? In any event, you seem to be the primary sufferer of that complaint... Tomandlu 17:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's not meant to be ironic. But you are entitled to your absurd opinion :) (Jvalant 17:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC))

What is offensive about the term mutiny? There was a mutiny - Indian troops in British employ mutinied. The rebellion wasn't just a mutiny, but it's hard to deny that there was one. I don't see how this is particularly offensive to anyone. It might be somewhat misleading about the nature of the rebellion, but it doesn't strike me as particularly more misleading than "War of Independence," which seem to be a term based around retrojecting an anachronistic self-conscious modern nationalism into the 1850s. john k 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't it be considered BOTH a mutiny and a battle for independence? Technically, it was. The British Empire WAS real with real effects, so any rebellion by troops employed by them would be correctly a "mutiny". By the same token, a war for independence PRESUMES the existence of an imperial power. And a mutiny of indigenous troops, albeit employed by a foreign power, is by definition DEFYING the sovereign power of the empire, i.e. acting INdependenly of that power's wishes. Moreover, if this is seen historically as a significant event leading to an allout struggle for independence, then it properly belongs with it. Tmangray 18:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely the Indian Rebellion started with a military mutiny, when the sepoys refused their new rifles and rose up against the British officers? However, it did become more than a Mutiny, as the soldiers were joined by the civilian population. So it is wrong to term it 'The Indian Mutiny'. But in fact the name 'The First War of Independence' has never had any widespread scholarly acceptance; it is part of an overtly nationalisic projection of modern attitudes onto history.Sebrat 05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, can you sort this out

Your edit:

"While in the Eastern world, it is commonly referred to as a "War of Independence", in the western world it is more commonly referred to as a mutiny or rebellion."

makes no sense. If you're going to capitalise "Eastern", please do the same for "western". If you want caps for "War of Independence", then please replace the "a" before it with a "the". Personally, I'd go back to just "war of independence" (no caps, no quotes) - the point (which I thought was your point) is that we are talking about the characterisation of the conflict, not about a pedantic and specific name.

Needless to say, I'd make the changes myself, but life's too short for the inevitable revert by you. Tomandlu 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make the changes. However, I did remove the edit by NJW which claimed that "Eastern World" is too broad of a term. It is just as broad as "Western World". I hope that's ok. (User:Jvalant)

Doesn't worry me unless it's untrue - do you have any particular knowledge of how the conflict is described in, say, Thailand? However, since the whole tone of that particular section is bent towards ideological grand-standing, rather than a quest for accuracy, it probably doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. C'est la vie... Tomandlu 09:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
We shouldn't say that it is called that in "the Eastern World" unless we have some evidence that it's true. Which, at present, we do not have. We have no reason to think that people in Japan or China call it the "War of Independence." We should stick to what we know, which is that it's called the War of Independence on the Indian subcontinent. john k 11:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but then I'm pretty sure that I'm a racist imperialist, and probably a member of the KKK or something. The whole thing is pretty silly. Jvalant wants to ascribe a particular name to exclusive use by white imperialists (i.e. "Western") - he can only justify this absurdity by ascribing "War of Independence" to everyone else.
I'm vaguely hoping that he might blunder into the contradictions of his own claims and fix it. I'm certainly not going to enter into an edit war with him. Life's too short, and as long as the offending passage doesn't creep out of the name section I can live with it.
Alternatively, perhaps a few non-indian easterners might decide to fix it.... and I suppose there is the vague possibility that "war of independence" is the consensus in the eastern world...Tomandlu 12:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm glad that you all understand the reasoning behind my removal of the term "Eastern world", shame Jvalant does not seem to recognise such logic. If Jvalant wants to pursue his Indian nationalist ideology on Wikipedia then I suggst he does so on Hindi/Gujarati/Punjabi Wikipedia where the concept of a war of independence would probably be more readily accepted. NJW494 15:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I can't give you references from Thailand or China which call it the "War of Independence" - but perhaps you can give me references from Iceland, Slovakia or the Czech Republic which call it "The Indian Mutiny" which would justify the "Western World" comment. (Jvalant 10:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Uh, jvalant, afaik it is you who insists that "mutiny" is a "western world" thing. Can you please stop classifying these changes as vandalism (they are plainly not). If you don't agree, then find a suitable way of framing the disagreement in the context of the article and in an NPOV way - perhaps you could expand the names section to explain the nature of the controversy?
Uh, no. I didn't put in the comment that the "mutiny" is a "western world" thing; NJW did. I had put in the comment that while in India it is known as a "war of independence", the western media still uses the term Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion - which was as neutral as possilbe. NJW and his ilk claim that the entire "western world" uses the term "mutiny" which is gibberish to say the least - hence, my comment about the "eastern world" thing. (Jvalant 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
For the moment, I'll put in a request for comment - will you agree to abide by its outcome? Tomandlu 11:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
NJW can perhaps put forth his viewpoints on the webpage of the British National Party or the Ku Klux Klan - he is entitled to his opinion after all and his "Indian Mutiny" view would be more acceptable there. (Jvalant 10:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
What's the problem with calling it a mutiny? They were soldiers who disobeyed orders so I think that falls into the category of mutiny. Besides, you could only call it a War of Independence if they had won. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.115.253 (talk) 20:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC).
That's not very logical. You could lose a war of independence but that's still what it is. - Dave Smith

Outside opinion

It's high time for the editors here to archive the older parts of the talk page and open a request for comments. Remember, editing an encyclopedia isn't a matter of life and death. Best wishes, Durova 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Name of conflict

There is a bit of a storm in a teacup going on here - can anyone advise?

Basically, Jvalant has strong opposition to the term "Indian Mutiny", and will only allow it to feature in the names section, and only then when it is ascribed to the "Western world". His opinion is that the term is racist, and that the "Eastern world" uses the term "First War of Indian Independence"

He will revert any changes that contradict this view, and class them as vandalism. Tomandlu 11:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am willing to remove it being called "war of independence" in the Eastern World - since it is not called a "war of independence" in the whole of the eastern hemisphere but only if "indian mutiny" is not associated with "Western World" since I have pointed out...it is not known as such in the entire western hemisphere. That's just plain double standards. (Jvalant 11:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
"indian mutiny" is a very common term - wouldn't it be better to accept that, and then to add a suitable NPOV paragraph to the names of conflict section explaining why some indians/pakistanis object to the term? And please, please stop referring to "vandalism" and the KKK - it really isn't helpful Tomandlu 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't put in the comment that the "mutiny" is a "western world" thing; NJW did. I had put in the comment that while in India it is known as a "war of independence", the western media still uses the term Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Rebellion - which was as neutral as possilbe. NJW and his ilk claim that the entire "western world" uses the term "mutiny" which is gibberish to say the least - hence, my comment about the "eastern world" thing. (Jvalant 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)) Jvalant 12:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO "uses" does not imply exclusively "uses", and "western media" doesn't really make any sense either (why would the "media" insist on using a term unused by the general public?).
Can't we just say that "indian mutiny" is a common term, but that, in india and pakistan, it is increasingly viewed as objectionable, and that the term "war of independence" is preferred by many?
Oh, and also, retain it at the top of the article, with a short note referring the reader to the "names of conflict" section?
I strongly agree that the dispute is an interesting, if minor, part of the article, but it should be part of the article, rather than part of the editing process... ;) Tomandlu 12:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fine with the comment you suggested in the names section. I don't think it is fine in the intro since it makes it seem that this term is acceptable (Jvalant 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
I'm still in the dark as to why you think it's unacceptable (and racist) - it's "indian mutiny", not "curry-eating sub-humans mutiny" :) Since "indian" can't be racist, and "mutiny" carries no racial overtones, where does the racism come in? Even "mutiny" is not an exclusively negative action.
You might as well as object to the first world war being commonly called "the great war" on the basis that it wasn't so great. That said, surely a reference at the top after the usage to the names section (e.g. "(controversial - see Indian Rebellion of 1857#Debate over name of conflict)") should resolve the issue? Tomandlu 12:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Name of Conflict - Is Everyone Happy?

... or equally miserable in any event? Tomandlu 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Well, I was referring to the recent problems with the name of conflict section, and the inclusion of "indian mutiny" in the top section, rather than the old name-of-article debate (which, iirc, has been buried at the crossroads with a stake through its heart). Tomandlu 14:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I felt that if "The Indian Mutiny" required a comment at the top of the article then so did the "War of Independence". Personally I think such commentray is not required at all but if certain editors insist on portraying one name for the conflict in a bad light then their preferred name for the conflict must go in for some citical assessment. NJW494 15:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
... and the fun continues. I've slightly shortened your comment. I'm tempted to move the "Debate over name of conflict" section back to the top - the current name-dispute at the top is threatening to get out of hand. Can we all take a deep breath and repeat the mantra "this is an interesting but minor issue"... Tomandlu 15:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jvalant btw, and just out of curiosity, why doesn't "sepoy rebellion" get given a hard time? Tomandlu 15:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just mention the damned names in the intro, and worry about the politics elsewhere? I don't see why we need to humor Jvalant, who's a POV pusher with nothing coherent to contribute, as far as I can tell. john k 15:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I largely agree regarding additional comments in the intro, but it'll just mean an edit war with Jvalant. Personally, if it would shut Jvalant up, I'd be happy with the single reference after "Indian mutiny" in the intro, and an expanded explanation in the names section (the issue is, after all, not without interest), but NJW494 shot that one down.... Perhaps the time has come to leave well enough alone? Tomandlu 15:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
A single reference after Indian Mutiny would be playing into Jvalant's hands. Better none at all, to be honest. NJW494 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
None at all would be my pref., but I'll settle for anything that will be accepted by all parties. C'mon - let's show we're bigger than Jvalant and let the baby have his bottle... Tomandlu 16:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The crux of the matter is that we're trying to build a credible encyclopaedia article, as such we can't give in to the demands of the lunatic fringe. NJW494 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
We should be working to get Jvalant banned, not to humor his ridiculous nationalistic whims. His personal attacks on everyone who disagrees with him as a racist should on their own be sufficient to see him out of here. john k 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Of course, "let's launch some personal attacks on "the native", he has too much of a strong view and let's get him banned so that this serves as an example to all natives?" Why don't NJW and Kenney go burn some crosses or lynch someone instead in their elaborate gowns? Perhaps that will help them get over being kicked out of India or any other colony. They are the ones who need to be banned for parading their hate-mongering POVs in such a blatant manner. I don't see why an article in an encyclopedia has to be any more biased than it already is. This is fine for now. (Jvalant 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC))


Of course we are the racists. Just because we're white people disagreeing with someone of asian descent means that we're card carrying KKK members. Its logical isn't it? We're obviously just disagreeing with you because of your skin colour rather than because you're a nationalist bigot intent on stirring up trouble and parading around with a chip the size of Bombay on your shoulder. NJW494 19:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
NJW - that's a chip the size of Mumbai. john k 19:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Did you really expect such an evil racist to use the name "Mumbai". I guess my mind was just preoccupied with lynching preparations.NJW494 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No you are racist because as just illustrated, you deleted a reference I put in by the Speaker of the Lok Sabha - you just don't wish to accomadate anything that does not conform to your POV. Why delete a reference by the Speaker of the Indian Parliament? Could you please explain? (Jvalant 19:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
I mostly object to the systematic denigration of the term "Indian Mutiny" it is a valid POV, just as the "war of indpendence" is a POV. Neither of them should be promoted abov the other, unfortunately you are promoting the war of independence idea at the expense of another POV. That reference from the speaker of the Indian Parliament was nothing but point of view pushing. Something you seemingly do a lot. You see racism where there is none, and I am finding you to be a very offensive person, who needs to stop disrupting Wikipedia. NJW494 19:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Now, perhaps you would like to explain why "Indian mutiny" is a valid POV? You have never actually said why you think so. I have given my reasons umpteen times as to why "War of Independence" is in my opinion, a valid POV. (Jvalant 19:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
They are both valid Points of view, but Wikipedia is not a place to push your POV, especially at the expense of another. You just don't seem to understand that. NJW494 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Jvalant I am more than willing to help ensure that all modern perspectives and controversies on the name of the conflict have a relevant place in the article (I would prefer that we had a bit more editing and improvement on the main content of the article, but that would take more research than the pointless grandstanding over the name, c'est la bleedin' vie). However, your recent edits push the limit. There is a valid place in Wikipedia for statements from the Indian parliament, and there may even be a place for them in this article. However, they should be used as a reference rather than as the stated position of the article. Surely you see that?

Your behaviour and attitude is becoming unsupportable - if you can't behave (and edit) reasonably, then I'll happily request a lock on the page until the issue can be resolved, which would be a shame. I'd like (as a minor project) to add a map showing the area of the conflict. I'd like to add a nice concise timeline of the conflict. Couldn't you also find a more productive way to use your considerable energies? Tomandlu 19:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Could someone remove Jvalant's latest edit? I'd rather not breach the 3 revert rule. NJW494 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Tomandlu, - well, I would have absolutely no qualms about a speech by a British parliamentrian/politican put in the "names controversy" section where he states his reasons for it being an "Indian Mutiny." Surely, the views of the democratically designated Speaker of a billion people's view is extremely important in this section. NJW 'valid' POVs definitely should be mentioned - I don't dispute that for one minute. Perhaps you would like to tell me why you believe "Indian Mutiny" is a 'VALID' POV? Don't beat around the bush - just give me your reasons. (Jvalant 20:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

User:Jvalant - I thought I'd explained. It's like "The Great War". It's common and not demonstrably objectionable. There is a valid dispute as to whether this is a war of independence or a rebellion or mutiny, but facts are facts and war of independence is not the common name for the conflict any where except for the indian subcontinent.

On that basis, no one has to justify it as the most common term, or justify placing the term "war of independence" in the correct geographical context. WOI may be "right", but that still doesn't change anything. This is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper leader column. Tomandlu 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You really just don't get it, do you Jvalant? The Indian Mutiny and The First War of Independence are both valid POV, however what you are doing is giving undue prominence to one of them whilst rubbishing the other. They both have their place in this article, as equals, without the endorsement of Wikipedia. Wikipedia must take the middle ground. You're skewing this article towards your POV, with heavily opinion based talks by Indian MPs chucked in to add your viewpoint credence. At the time, and for many years the idea of an Indian/Sepoy Mutiny was the prevailing view of this conflict, such views are still held by many thus making it a valid POV, but not one that should be givn pride of place in this article. This article is designed to give a version of events that is as neutral as possible, not to give Jvalant a place to push his worldview at the expense of others. This is wikipedia, it isn't your blog. NJW494 20:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I know what Tomandlu is doing, he is doing with the best of intentions. But I must question your motives, NJW. You called the POV of it being a "War of Independence" a myth - here is where - "12:25, 1 November 2006 NJW494 (Talk | contribs) m (The difference is that the West does have a common name for the conflict, whereas Eastern countries don't, the war of independence myth is generally confined to the subcontinent.." This was the reason for one of your edits. Err - why do you think this view is a myth?

And you honestly expect me to believe that you want this article to appear neutral?

Tomandly, I shall gladly agree to this speech not being part of the article, if you agree that quotes from the "I have a dream" speech is removed from the American Civil Rights movement page. After all, that too is merely POV pushing - isn't it? I am more than willing to remove my objections about your edits, if NJW can state candidly and lucidly why he thinks the Indian Mutiny POV is as important as the War of Independence POV. He just stated that Indian/Sepoy Mutiny WAS the prevailing view of the conflict. Sikanderji too has stated that "Mutiny" is archaic. So why precisely is he so insistent on it being given as much credence as the WOI POV? Reasons, please. (Jvalant 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
And Tomandly this is what you stated: "I thought I'd explained. It's like "The Great War". It's common and not demonstrably objectionable. There is a valid dispute as to whether this is a war of independence or a rebellion or mutiny, but facts are facts and war of independence is not the common name for the conflict any where except for the indian subcontinent." - This is a bit incorrect. The only dispute was for the words "rebellion" and "WOI" - the word "mutiny" was never part of the debate. (Jvalant 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
The Indian Mutiny is an archaic term, yet still used by many historians. The War of Independence is a nationalist myth. They are both POV, but not my point of view, they are both equally wrong in my eyes. To be honest stating much more than this would be fruitless. However they are both valid points of view that are held by many people, with the term "The Indian Mutiny" possessing more academic currency than the idea of a war of independence. It is however quite obvious that the conflict was not purely created by mutinous sepoys and it is also obvious that the conflict was in no way a genuine INDIAN war of independence, the absence of a national consciousness and th mix of motivations among the rebellious groups prohibiting the conflict being a war of Independence. I'd characterise the conflict more as a localised uprising personally, driven by religion, caste, discontent, greed, injustice and the influence of local rulers but not by the idea of Indian Independence. NJW494 20:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"Still used my many historians" - which ones? Infact, who precisely was the last historian to call it a mutiny? Otherwise, you could provide references from books published in the recent past which call it a mutiny? (Jvalant 21:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

To quote the departed User:Mintguy from back at Talk:Indian Mutiny:

Most books (even very recently published books) on the subject use this name, for example (this is just from 2004) Our Bones Are Scattered: Cawnpore Massacres and the Indian Mutiny of 1857; Andrew Ward; pub. John Murray; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny and the British Imagination; (Cambridge Studies in Nineteenth-century Literature & Culture); Gautam Chakravarty; published 2004; - The Indian Mutiny; John Harris (Wordsworth Military Library) 2004. Searching for other names used does not yield similar results. The CLASSIC work on this subject (published in 1980) is The Great Mutiny: India, 1857 by Christopher Hibbert.

He also provided a list of works by Indian and Pakistani authors that used mutiny in the title:

Books by Indian and Pakistani Authors -

  • Mutiny and Its Aftermath Om Prakash(Ed) (1994)
  • Indian Mutiny to Jallianwala Bagh Tragedy, 1857-1919 by S.R. Bakshi Dr. Sangh Mittra (2003)
  • Indian Mutiny of 1857: An Annotated and Illustrated Bibliography by Vipin Jain (1998)
  • Indian Politics Since the Mutiny by CY Chintamani (2002)
  • The Indian Mutiny by Rudrangshu Mukherjee (scheduled for publication 2005)
  • Freedom fighters of Indian Mutiny 1857 by M. P Srivastava (1997)
  • The Indian mutiny of 1857 and the Sikhs by Ganda Singh (1969)
  • The Indian Mutiny, 1857 by M. P Srivastava Chugh (1979)
  • Indian Mutiny: 1857 in Bihar by Ritambhari Devi
  • English Historical Writing on the Indian Mutiny 1857-1859 by Sashi Bhusan Chaudhuri(1979)
  • Theories of the Indian Mutiny by Chaudhuri, Sashi Bhusan (1965)
  • Novels on the Indian Mutiny by Shailendra Dhari Singh (1973)

Hope this is "helpful". john k 21:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Well, then I agree to Indian Mutiny being mentioned as not as archaic as I thought it would be. So I shall remove my objections, as far as the speech my the Speaker of the Lok Sabha is not removed. (Jvalant 21:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I'm happy for the speech to be included, but it must be as something included as part of an enc. article, not as the POV of the article. I'll have a go at a reasonable compromise. Tomandlu 22:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Jvalant is amenable to facts. I apologize for many of the mean things I've said about him, but not all, since he has accused me of being a racist and a member of the KKK. john k 23:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


John K, it's fine. I did insult you a fair bit and was convinced that you were NJW posting under a different login. But I guess you are not - I've only insulted those who have insulted me - which is precisely why I haven't said anything about Tomandlu. So I do regret my comments toward you as well. Cheers (Jvalant 23:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Tomandlu, regretfully this current version seems to sweep the whole WOI thing under the carpet. It comes across as extremely biased to me. I shall be making changes later tonight once I have the time - do let me know if you think these are fine. (Jvalant 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

Okay (although I'm slightly confused as to how the current version sweeps the WOI issue under the carpet) - just remember, the article may present POVs, but should not endorse one, or exaggerate the significance of a particular POV. IMHO we really need to keep this aspect of the article confined as far as possible to the sections devoted to the controversy, and avoid "mission creep". Tomandlu 09:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW it's worth taking a look at American Civil War and Naming the American Civil War - if anyone feels that the controversy over the name needs expansion, it might be worth taking a leaf from those articles and moving any extended section to a new page specifically created to deal with the issue, and only retaining a section of reasonable length in the current article (which, IMHO, should be focussed on the actual events of the conflict). Tomandlu 11:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Possible Compromise?

Why not The 1857 Indian Uprising ??-It is was indeed a major uprising, and (having no personal connection) NPOV. And then list the other names under it at the begining of the article? Not everyone has to argee, and "American Civil War" has the same problem, and is from the same era.... --Cybersquire 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry cyber - the problem isn't about the article title (which has been accepted - sort of - by all), but about how we list the alternative names in the intro section and also the text in the "debate over name of conflict" section. I think we're getting to a resolution.... Tomandlu 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And now for something completely different - Map

Hmm, tempted to put a bid in on this: Indian Mutiny map on ebay Tomandlu 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Thanks for opening an RfC for this page. I'll try a very rough stab at setting forth matters in a neutral manner. Feel welcome to clarify, but try to keep things brief and to the point.

  • The dispute is over the best name for this article.
  • Mutiny is a term in longstanding use as a description of these events. The term connotes defiance against legitimate power and arguably represents colonialist POV. On the other hand, British colonial rule ended 60 years ago and is very unlikely to resume.
  • Rebellion might carry similar connotations to a lesser degree. It could also be a neutral description of an armed attempt at political independence that failed to achieve its goals.
  • War of Independence is a modern term used in India and Pakistan. It is not in broad use in the rest of the English speaking world and might be confusing because neither country actually achieved independence in 1857.
  • Indian could be a hot button term for parts of former British India. The colony was partitioned at independence and some territorial conflicts have followed between the modern states. The Kashmir region in particular has been the focal point of several wars, most recently in 1999.

I hope that summarizes the dilemma for visitors. Durova 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why for something to be a "mutiny" the question of "legitimate power" comes into it at all. The troops were in British employ and rose up against their (British) officers. It was thus a "mutiny" against the de facto political authorities. The issue of whether their authority was legitimate ought not come up, and I don't think there's any connotation whatsoever about the nature of British rule in India. I suppose it implies that the mutineers were soldiers in the employ of the British, but, um, they were. To say this is not to advance a POV. The supposed POV issues of rebellion are even less serious, I think. And I don't think that anybody has yet brought up any POV objections to "Indian." "Pakistan" obviously did not exist until 1947. john k 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

John K, the word mutiny means that it was ONLY the soldiers who revolted and not the local population or anyone else outside of the troops. This clearly was not the case. (Jvalant 06:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Note that this was not the potentially offensive meaning that was argued by Durova above. I agree that the word mutiny implies (but does not mean) that it was only soldiers who revolted. That being said, it has always been clear, even from imperialist accounts by people who call it "the Mutiny," that this was not the case. The fact that a name is a misnomer is not a good reason to not call it that if that is the most common name. See for instance Hundred Years War, which lasted 116 years (unlike most other "X Years War"s, which lasted for exactly the amount of time stated, even the Eighty Years War, if we assume it started in 1568). The War of the Polish Succession, in spite of the fact that Poland was an elective monarchy, and thus had no succession. The Battle of Bunker Hill, actually fought on Breed's Hill. The general solution we adopt in such instances is to explain the possible confusions of the term in the text, not to suppress the most common name. john k 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised that no one else seems to care about the racist NJW vandalizing the page over and over again. It is a fact that the Govt. of India is celebrating 2007 as the 150th of the events as The First War of Indian Independence - and so far the British Govt. has not protested that move. How is this statement not NPOV?

As far as editing the speech of the Speaker of the House, it is extremely important to convey that Indians saw the acts of Brits as opressive - this is clearly what the Speaker states - I am going to include that quote once again. If NJW has any speeches by any British Parliamentrian on why it should be known as the Indian Mutiny and not as a WOI, he is more than welcome to post it. If the Brits want to celebrate 2007 as the 150th anniversary of putting down the mutiny then he is more than welcome to post it too. For now, he should not be allowed to alter facts as they stand. (Jvalant 17:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

I am really starting to be annoyed by your baseless accusations. You are quite clearly the one with a nationalistic agenda here. Your edits are giving your views pride of place, rather than trying to illustrate multiple points of view. Wikipedia isn't your website jvalant, it isn't a soapbox for you to air only your views on. I suggest you leave Wikipedia as you are clearly only here to promote your ideology of chip-on-shoulder nationalism.NJW494 17:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you give some valid points instead of showing your obviously racist tendencies. If you have nothing to add except further the imperialist agenda of your has-been nation, then Wikipedia is not a channel to vent the frustrations of the impotency of the erstwhile British Empire which now lives on the scraps thrown to it by its master - the USA. See a shrink and get over it. Jvalant 01:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you one thing - I wouldn't dream of putting a comment on a historical event by the Speaker of the British House of Commons in a Wikipedia article. This is partly because the incumbent is a cretin, but more generally because what politicians have to say about history is generally unreliable. They have no historical training, they don't undertake research, they're not published or peer-reviewed most of the time (and when they are they're not always reliable - I wouldn't consider Winston Churchill's historical writings to be so). When it's just a speech, as here, you have to bear in mind that they always have an agenda to push, in this case good old-fashioned nationalist rabble-rousing. Banging on about the "First War of Indian Independence" is a lot easier than actually doing something for your constituents. To accord such prominence to a completely POV quote from a politician and non-historian, and then claim it represents the views of a majority of Indians, is not acceptable. Most Indians I imagine neither know nor care what this conflict is called - "Indian Mutiny" is, as I have said many times before, inaccurate, but to describe it as "offensive" is just ridiculous chippiness. It's wrong because it's too limited a description of what happened, but the Rebellion did begin with a mutiny in the Bengal army. It is also still very widely used, even within the subcontinent, much more so than "First War of Indian Independence". Whilst we argue about this and politicise the page, it remains badly organised and poorly referenced, with numerous factual inaccuracies and intemperate language: there are better uses for our energies. Finally, fascinating as I have found this endless bickering on the talk page, I somehow do not think that this dispute is of any interest to ordinary readers of Wikipedia. That is why I deleted that section.Sikandarji 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, with all due respect this is entirely your personal opinion. After all, how important is the constituency of the Speaker of the House - he is not exactly among the most important MPs. I believe that elected leaders reflect the opinions and feelings of the citizens of the nation - if you have proof to back up your claims, please post them. (Jvalant 08:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

"I believe that elected leaders reflect the opinions and feelings of the citizens of the nation." Maybe I'm just an incorrigible cynic, but I don't. These are both POVs of course - we could have a little poll to see how many people think politicians can be relied upon to simply reflect the wishes of those who elected them. On the other hand we could drop it as a waste of time.Sikandarji 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


My understanding is that in wikipedia generally, statements by politicians are only taken to be reliable sources for what that politician believes. john k 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator blows Wiki-whistle: timeout

It doesn't help collaborative editing to personalize a dispute with confrontational phrases and hot button words. Let's remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Another Wikipedia page, the essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons applies here:

One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.

As a gesture of good faith, I ask each of the editors here to strike out impolite statements such as "...showing your obviously racist tendencies..." and "...you are clearly only here to promote your ideology..." Whichever side of the matter you stand on, make it a point to conduct yourself with class so that - at best - you create a great article together or that - at worst - the other editor's behavior eventually speaks for itself at dispute resolution and someone hands you a barnstar for displaying grace under fire. Regards, ye-olde-administrator Durova 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Tomandlu, here arelinks that show that it is being celebrated as the First War of Independence

http://www.hindu.com/2006/07/13/stories/2006071314690400.htm

http://pmindia.nic.in/speech/content.asp?id=352

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040105/main2.htm (Jvalant 15:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

This is precisely what I'm talking about when I say modern-day politicians' views should not be used as sources for historical subjects - a quotation from Vajpayee in the Tribune article:

“Our forefathers fought side by side, transcending religious, regional and linguistic differences against a common colonial oppressor in our First War of Independence in 1857. It reminds us that many of us have a shared history which pre-dates our more recent divisions.”

The sentiments in this speech are admirable, but they are not good history because Vajpayee has a concurrent politicial agenda to push, in this case improving India-Pakistan relations. Sindh played no part in the 1857 Rebellion, whilst Delhi was retaken from the rebels by troops from Punjab and the North-West Frontier, the core regions of Pakistan. Hindu and Muslim fought side by side in 1857 (though not without tensions, as you'll see if you read William Dalrymple's latest book, The Last Mughal) - but the Rebellion did not spread to the territory of what is now Pakistan, rather the reverse. Sikandarji 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


Err - William Dalrymple - where is he from ? (Jvalant 18:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC))

What does that matter? I've told you before. Judge historians by the quality of their arguments and the reliability of their sources, not by their nationality. Dalrymple's not the greatest historian in fact (although he's always entertaining). However, he has a very good research team working for him, including a scholar called Faruqi who reads Persian and Urdu. The most interesting stuff in "The Last Mughal" is taken from the "Mutiny Papers" from the National Archives of India, documents in Urdu and Persian written during the internal administration of the city under Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons, and the Dihli Urdu Akhbar, the Urdu-language newspaper which carried on publishing throughout the siege. These are the sources which reveal certain tensions between the largely Hindu Sepoys and Muslims from the Doab region who had poured into Delhi to fight a holy war against the British. In any case, that's not central to the point I'm making: Hindus and Muslims did fight the British side by side in 1857. But to equate these with the modern Indian and Pakistani nationalities is extremely problematic. The fact is that the majority of the "British" troops besieging Delhi from the Ridge were Punjabis and Pathans. That's what makes Vajpayee's statement good politics, good, admirable and humane foreign policy, but bad history. Sikandarji 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, I completely I agree with you. The reason I put those links in was in response to Tomandlu asking if the Indian Govt. is gonna celebrate it at a "war of independence" - I was not about to claim that vajpayee was a historian. (Jvalant 01:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

Jvalant, I think NJW's point is that "Indian Mutiny" is the most commonly used term in the English-speaking world - and that comprises much more than just the UK. You yourself acknowledged that it is sometimes used in India, and frequently by Indian historians. Check any respectable university library catalogue and you will find 100+ titles on the "Indian Mutiny", many of very recent publication. The Bodleian only has eight books on the "Indian War of Independence", one of which is Savarkar's polemic and two of which do not even refer to 1857. It does not help matters when you describe changes that are owing to a difference of opinion as "vandalism". This is not vandalism - people writing obscenities and insults or leaving random remarks on the page would constitute "vandalism". Both of you would do better to take this to arbitration and stop behaving like a couple of two-year olds. I've already given you my view - the whole "debate over the name" section should be deleted as tiresome, politicised and irrelevant to the purposes of this article. Meanwhile you could both devote your obviously considerable energies to actually improving the content of the page and referencing it properly rather than trading insults. Here's an idea - why not go to a library for a month and actually read some of the titles I've cited rather than flinging absurd allegations of racism around on the basis of some half-remembered facts from your 10th class textbook? Sikandarji 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Evidence for assertion that majority of countries know this conflict as a sepoy/Indian Mutiny:

The majority of other language wikipedia articles in latin script refer to this conflict using some variant of "Sepoy Mutiny"/"Indian Mutiny". That pretty much shows that such terminology is not confined to the UK, indeed in the US the terms Indian Mutiny/Sepoy Muting are also the most widely used, as in the rest of the anglophone world apart from the subcontinent. You have to allow your preferred term to be criticised in the article if you are allowed to criticise other POV in the article. Otherwise you are simply promoting th idea of the conflict being a WOI at the expense of other views on the conflict.NJW494 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


This is the line I have deleted...again..."However the term First War of Indian Independence has had very little popular or academic recognition outside the subcontinent." It is a loaded statement - please provide any reference you may have which clearly states this. Else, I shall have to put in the following line - "Indian Mutiny has very little popular or academic regocnition outside of the UK." In the USA, practically no one knows about this series of events so your allegation about the "anglophone" world outside of the subcontinent is false. (Jvalant 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Those who know about it at all in the U.S. (and they are few, given the general lack of interest shown by Americans in anything which isn't in their backyard) are much more likely to know of it as the "Indian Mutiny", as that is what most books on the subject call it (most of those which don't call it the 1857 Revolt or Rebellion or something similar). That said, I cannot see any necessity for the line which NJW494 has been adding "However the term First War of Indian Independence has had very little popular or academic recognition outside the subcontinent." It is indeed a loaded and unnecessary statement. There is a lengthy section already devoted to the debate over whether or not it was a "War of Independence" which will tell the neutral reader all which he or she needs to know. Equally, Jvalant's reference to "Indian Mutiny" being "controversial" and the whole section dealing with the "debate over the name" should be deleted as superfluous. See my other comments above. Sikandarji 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, whether you like it or not, there is a conscious movement in India to term it as a WOI - and the term "mutiny" is seen by many Indians as insulting. How is mentioning that not NPOV? If there is a movement in the UK to stress it as a mutiny which states that all this Indian talk of a WOI is hogwash - I have no issues with it being mentioned in the "debate over the name" section. (Jvalant 19:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC))


Sikandarji is right, we don't need those issues covered in that section. The names should be listed, but shouldn't be promoted or attacked in that section. I have left the statement by that politician in, but it seems a trifle useless to me. The following section adequately explains the debate over the character of the conflict, without resorting to some heavy politicisation. If Jvalant is not happy with criticism of his POV being included in the article then I hardly think it is fair that he feels he can dish out criticism of other POV. As such it is much more simple just to list the facts. NJW494 19:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


I am fine with any criticism - if you do have statements by British politicians stating that is a mutiny and not a WOI, go ahead and put it in. The line you deleted only says what the quote by the Speaker of the parliament states. If I wanted to politicize the thing - I would include quotes from the Prime Minister, the ex-Prime Minister as well as several MPs. (Jvalant 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC))

Just to note, I'm not sure where NJW is getting the term "Sepoy Mutiny" from. The term is "Indian Mutiny" or "Sepoy Rebellion." Sepoy Mutiny is a weird bastard child of the two, and I don't think I've ever seen it. john k 02:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There are books which use the term "Sepoy Mutiny", for instance Ramesh Chandra Majumdar's The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 (Calcutta) 1957, or Edward Vibart The Sepoy Mutiny as seen by a Subaltern. From Delhi to Lucknow (London) 1898. Tapti Roy uses the expression as well in her 1991 book. It's not "weird" at all - I've certainly seen the term used before, which is scarcely surprising as it's a precise description of the early stages of the Rebellion in the Bengal army. And to Jvalant - I fail to see a distinction between inserting quotes from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and quotes from the Prime Minister or other MPs. They're all politicians, not historians. Maybe if I searched long and hard I could find a quotation from a British MP about the "Mutiny", but what would its interest or relevance be? I've already told you that I wouldn't dream of putting an equivalent quotation into the article. Frankly, nobody in the UK (or anywhere else I should imagine) gives a stuff what Indian politicians call it, so what's it doing in the article? Sikandarji 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I think its probably high time that we reached a consensus on removing all pieces of POV from the name section. Does anyone other than Jvalant object to my removal of all loaded comments (including that random Indian politician's POV)? NJW494 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect to NJW494's obsession to anglecize the article; it seems we will need to keep a watchman for this section or else he might go ahead with a proposal by a voice vote and the time given for voting will only be enough for him to cough once. NJW, there are better things in life than to undo wrongs of ancestors. --Bobby Awasthi 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just interested in NPOV, I'm acting on comments made by other users who do not see the point in allowing politics and POV to intrude on a historical article. Your comments are quite out of order. I will not respond with childish name calling as this debate is already heated, but I'll be damned if I tolerate such remarks about my character. You assume because I'm English that my intention is to anglicise the article, but one wonders whether your nationality may perhaps come into play here. NJW494 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sikanderji, I have no qualms about putting in quotes by all Indian politicians on this issue - but it would be beating on a dead horse. This one quote does reflect the current view prevalent in India - and hence, it is important that it remain. I have not stated anywhere whether this is a correct intepretation or not. So, what exactly is the harm? Besides it is clearly stated that Mr. Chatterjee is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and not a historian. (Jvalant 21:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

merge suggestion

Merge as suggested. Hmains 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Enfield Rifle

The Enflield Rifle section doesn't actually say whether the cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat or not. I have read histories which claim both that they were and weren't, but does anyone know if there is a historical consensus on the issue? If they do can they add and source the fact (or facts)? The section itself could do with a tidy too actually, too many short paragraphs. Cheers--Jackyd101 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone else can confirm this for me. It says in the article that British soldiers were trained to be able to fire "three to four" rounds per minute. I've not heard soldiers being able to fire four rounds in a minute, three being the limit. I own a reproduction 1853 Enfield rifle, which I use for live firing and in American Civil War reenactments. It takes some skill to fire three blank rounds in a minute, which requires far less effort from the shooter. Well trained soldiers during the Civil War were said to have been able to fire a max of three a minute. I've watched experienced shooters fire three rounds a minute, and its usually always around one minute. Now, I don't know a whole lot about British military training and whether or not they were just that much better than the Americans, but I don't see how it is possible that five whole seconds can be shaved off the time it takes to fire each round (20 seconds to 15). Somebody get back to me on this. Thanks. Buckeye1921 10:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it not true that the cartridge did not need (and was not supposed) to be bitten but torn? (SS)

3rd Cavalry / Cawnpore etc:

MANY MONTHS AGO I HAD MENTIONED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ARTICLE WAS PARTICULARLY TILTING IN FAVOUR OF A PARTICULAR NATIONALISM. BUT I FIND MOST OF THE TALK PAGE DELETED ALTOGETHER. I think someone has to start editing the language. So let it be myself. I am trying to only remove 'weasle words' as per Wikipedia conventions and accordingly changing 'weasle sentences' (lemme call them that).

There was an incident in Nagpur as well. I had posted it. It should be in the archives. (Jvalant 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC))


--Bobby Awasthi 12:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing numerical details

Over time I have been looking for numerical details (numbers on each side on various places of uprising, number of combatant casualties on either side as well as that of civilians, also no numbers are available for 'Retaliation' section) but could not find anything on this. Is this data available somewhere. Vjdchauhan 14:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

I found some data available on cached files of Defence Journal online related to your query. [[1]] Try if this link works or else try google search with 1857 (out of quotes)and cawnpore or lucknow etc locations (in quotes). --Bobby Awasthi 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hindi Title

Whoever is vandalizing the page by removing the Hindi title unilaterally should stop doing so without a prior discussion. I think it should stay.

This is English Wikipedia, and hence vernacular scripts are to be avoided as far as possible. The exceptions are when the exact spelling of a non-English name is mentioned. What you have here is simply the Hindi transalation of the title, which is unnecessary. That name belongs on the Hindi Wikipedia, which is linked through the sidebar. Gamesmaster G-9 08:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The page on India has the name in Hindi, as Bharat and not as a direct translation - ditto for the pages of Japan, China etc. So the Hindi bit stays. (Jvalant 09:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

That is because the nation of India has an official name in Hindi which is different from the English name. This is entirely different. Its just a direct transalation of the title. Gamesmaster G-9 09:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Not really - it is the unofficial name Bharat which is written in the Hindi script. The official name "Bharat Ganrajya" is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
You're missing the point - "Bharat" is a NAME. It is also the correct name in Hindi for India, i.e. how the nation of India is to be addressed in Hindi. The Mutiny of 1857 is an EVENT. It does not have a proper name, and any Hindi phrase you affix to it is merely a transalation. Gamesmaster G-9 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. "Mutiny of 1857" is NAME given to an EVENT. Just as "War of Independence" is a NAME given to an EVENT or the Olympics is a NAME given to a Sporting EVENT. Incidentally, it is the Hindi words used here are also the official name through which the Govt. of India addresses this event in Hindi. (Jvalant 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Nope, there's a difference between a name (which is a Proper noun), and a description(which is a phrase). In any case, that isn't even the reason I removed the name in Devanagri. As I have mentioned before - simple transalations of a word or phrase into different languages should not be included in English Wikipedia. Gamesmaster G-9 22:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That is entirely your opinion. As such the name stays. (Jvalant 10:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC))
The Devanagari or other Indic scripts are unnecessary. This issue is not about the pros and cons of expressing Indian identity. What is to stop editors from adding translations of anything associated with India in an Indian language or script? The vernacular press wrote the names of the viceroys and governor-generals in Devanagari, Bengali, and other scripts. Do we need to add the Devanagari transliteration for Mountbatten, Dalhousie, etc. in those articles? This is the English wikipedia, afterall. Sarayuparin 01:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Proper nouns remain the same - names of events may be significantly different. (Jvalant 12:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Shaik Paltu Rank

Possible contradiction/inaccuracy between this page and the Shaikh Paltu page: The Shaikh Paltu page says he was promoted immediately to Havaldar, while the this page says "Shaikh Paltu was, however, promoted to the rank of Jemadar in the Bengal Army." While this is not necessarily a contradiction, as he could have been promoted immediately to the NCO rank of Havaldar (native sergeant) and later to the lowest Commissioned Officer rank of Jemadar, this should (if it is in fact correct) be clarified in both articles. Budgee 10:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My recent edits

I'm not seeking to denigrate Indian and Pakistani perspectives, rather to add a little counterbalance to the Indian opinion. After a cooling off period I've decided that the name and character sections certainly did need a little tweak to put the Indian subcontinental opinion in context with western views without removing or judging the Indian/Pakistani opinion. NJW494 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Once again, lopsided British views do not constitute "western views" just as Indian views do not constitute "eastern views". Stop vandalizing this page over and over again.


Those edits were entirely reasonable and you wiped them out. How can any westerner persuade you to honour views that aren't Indian nationalism? You've made some sections this article rather one sided with your outright rejection of other views. Other editors compromised and let you do what you wanted, I even gave in for a while due to your persistance. These compromises have led to your total control of this page. It isn't your personal fiefdom, it is an encyclopaedia. Give me some constructive comments: How was what I wrote not nutral, how were my views as lopsided as your Indian parliamentarian's martyr spiel? It is worthwhile to allow non-Indians to illustrate their points of view in these matters of opinion. Allow other editors to have their say. It will make Wikipedia better if you learn to allow others to air what are actually majority views (among English speakers). NJW494 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


If this conflict continues, after I have had a two month "cooling off" period then I believe I may have no choice but to call for arbitration on this matter. NJW494 16:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW - "and supported the foreigners" - removed by NJW - WHY? Were the British not foreigners?

"The title "First War of Independence" has not as yet gained much support outside the Indian subcontinent however, with variants of "Indian Mutiny" or "Sepoy Mutiny" or their translations generally preferred in Europe and North America." As I said earlier you must provide sources from Europe (outside of Britain) and from North America as well. This ridiculous comment is totally POV.

"and Pakistan it is not usually described as such in the United Kingdom and most other western countries" - Again - use sources. You can put in UK in this statement and neither I nor the world really care what the people in a dump like the UK believe. You need to provide sources for "most other western countries". (Jvalant 20:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC))


You're being rather rude here. I may soon be calling for arbitration here, so your internet bullying can be addressed. The titles in the other language versions of wikipedia are often variants of Indian or Sepoy mutiny unless they've been changed to a translation of this page title. That evidence has already been given to you. I'll give it 48 hours, then hopefully reason will rule supreme. NJW494 21:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Link one: [2], American site, prestigious University, uses the terms "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion", the specific entry is on this page, the special collection on the subject described as the "Sepoy Rebellion" collection . The South Asian Journalists Association (in the US) titles their page showcasing a few US articles contemporary to the rebellion as "The Indian Mutiny" [3], this group seems to be based at Columbia University. Now from a Canadian University, page uses "Indian Mutiny". [4]. Now from Columbia Encyclopedia: [5] a respected American Encyclopedia. French Wikipedia: [6], German Wikipedia: [7], Dutch Wikipedia: [8], Polish Wikipedia: [9], Portugese Wikipedia: [10]. These European Wikipedias use variations of Sepoy Mutiny. Those that do not use a translation of this article's title. Is that proof enough? NJW494 22:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW, you can give hundred links from hundred different language wikipedias; we all know most of them just happen to be translations of this one. I do agree that many users of world history are accustomed to the word 'Mutiny'; definitely lot more than 'War' in context of 1857 rising. However, the simple reason for that is that most written reference originated from the military of victor country. That does not by default legitimise the word or description as the sole authorized one. This is as simple as Saddam hanging or Afghan War or Custer's fall. This is also as simple as Mittal's Arcelor takeover, or Bangalored factor in US. It all depends on, which side you have been taught or shown. It could be good to keep editing to what you think is right; but do note that it is Indian History; probably better be told by Indian perspective (now that it is 21st century and Indians know how to read and write and talk globally). Since you insist on reference game, here are some 'external' links to show that the other sentence is also viable OUTSIDE Indian subcontinent.
  • Marx, Karl & Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. (The only outsider who was probably not a party)
  • J.W.Kaye, History of the Sepoy War, (3 volume history, London. 1876).
  • The Sepoy War of 1857: Mutiny or First Indian War of Independence? [11]
  • This is someone in US: Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC gives a brilliant analysis of the 1857 War of Independence(The Defence Journal - December 99 - Chapter Five: Development of Situation-January to July 1857)
  • Library of Congress Country Studies (US) also recognizes the factThe uprising, which seriously threatened British rule in India, has been called many names by historians, including the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857; many people in South Asia, however, prefer to call it India's first war of independence.

Open the page titled Sepoy Rebellion in there

Also just to give you some insight on one of the western descriptions of foundation of what you call Mutiny: The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and Religion."

-Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853. (These sentences also found way into the book I mentioned above)

In lighter vein, somewhat similar adamance on part of East India Company was responsible for that mutiny also.

--Bobby Awasthi 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Just one more insight. I followed the Link One you gave which refers to the so-called rebellion. The final link opens the following page: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Guide to Selected Special Collections Sections from Economic History to George, Stefan / Sections from Economic History to George / . Probably you know this, or else you would have given the direct link to the Sepoy Rebellion page which would have opened what I just mentioned. I see that your inclination is more to win than to argue and justify. :)

Also on the Columbia Encyclopedia evidence, the same encyclopedia has accounted for the life of Warnet Joseph Wolseley as follows: Warnet Joseph Wolseley, 1833–1913, British field marshal. He fought in Burma (present-day Myanmar; 1852–53), the Crimea (1854–56), India (1857–58), and China (1860). Now you may want to call it Myanmar Mutiny, Crimean Mutiny, Indian Mutiny, and Chinese Mutiny :)

--Bobby Awasthi 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

NJW, I honestly don't give two fu..ks about your 48 hour deadline. A consensus was reached after much deliberation. What's this whole "cooling off" period all about? None of the languages you mentioned are an official language in India. On the other hand, English is an official language. Besides, why has the British Govt. not objected to India officially calling the series of events - The First War of Independence. Well, they aren't even objecting to India officially celebrating its 150th anniversary. Why is that? They did object to Iran denying the holocaust - did they not? Really, you need to get over the fact that Britain is a has-been nation with little or no relevance in today's world. The sooner you grasp this grain of truth, the easier it will be to digest facts. (Jvalant 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Name clarification

Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance but isn't "First War of Indian Independence" kind of an oxymoron? If it were truly a war of independence, there wouldn't be a 2nd, 3rd, etc. War of Independence. Just my two cents worth... NPOV patrol 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC) p.s What's up with the Hindi script?

If you knew Indian history you would have not talked like an oxymoron. In its technical meaning if you call anything a war, there are only two of them, the first world war and the second. If you call it a war the way war is seen by most of 'humans' even the 1942 'Quit India' or many other such episodes will qualify for it. However, your two cents worth knows only a war which had bombs and bullets and corpses. It would be too much to expect you to understand that war is not always 'War of Worlds' it may also be 'War of Words'.

--Bobby Awasthi 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right. You are showing your ignorance. (202.177.230.240 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

I ask a simple question and get tag teamed by the cocksmooch twins. Nice! 68.221.11.205 23:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies - but this poor obsessive behaviour tends to be strife amongst the indian suffragette brigade on here.

Nomenclature

 Dear me,
 I have never seen such a storm in a teacup over a name. I entered this page whilst researching

The Indian Mutiny. Try entering War of Independance, and see how many links come up. But the Mutiny has only one; surely even rabid Hindu nationalists should be happy with that. Speaking of rabies, cannot someone ban Jvalant; it is nothing to do with POV, the bloke is simply an arsehole. For research sake, I am Australian, therefore both South Asian and European.


DylanThomas 10:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, Even the Irish and the Chechens and the Talibans and Iraqi Sunnis would love to name their respective 'mutinies' as 'wars of Independence'. Again, go and try, you would find many of those too. Want me to say more?

Speaking of Rabies, cannot someone remind us that Jvalant's may be a case of passion, which is still understandable; but yours is definitely a case of foul language and ignorant hypocrisy.

And oh Yeah! Let me give you a piece of knowledge on your subject of interest, i.e., History. The British Redcoats who were most responsible British factors behind this 'war/munity' and many such others in Asia and Africa and blamed with plundering a lot of the spoils of wars; were all deported to Australia, post enquiries (1860s). They are said to be the first whites in Australia; who did something very similar as what they did in India; to a comparatively smaller and weaker population of aborigines in Australia; for which Queen of England explicitly apologized to them on one of her visits, not many years back. Seems like ancestral lines cannot be hidden behind a camouflaged NPOV in today's world for research sake.

 On a lighter note, wonder how your guide/tutor bears with your ultimate ignorance on 
 topics you are researching. Or you also happen to be one of those outsourcing your  
 assignments to 'mutineers' India?

--Bobby Awasthi 16:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


Are there any guidelines regarding racist trailer trash like Dylan? He may have run out of aborigines to maim or kill or just couldn't afford a ticket to one of the cricket games to hurl racial abuse at spectators or Asian players. Forget wikipedia, such third rate individuals should be banned from entering civilized society. Oops - that is already done - didn't he say he was in Australia? Well, as far as he remains there or in the UK - it is fine. (Jvalant 06:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Wow! Also tag-teamed. I guess I'm priveledged; but a couple of minor inaccuracies: the first whites in my country arrived in 1788, not 1860; I go to the cricket to annoy Poms; and I am part Aboriginal. DylanThomas 10:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant - you are sailing very close to the wind here. If you want to get yourself banned this is a great way of going about it. As you may have noticed, I have given up trying to edit this page because of your aggressive, nationalist and ill-informed interventions. You seem to view Wikipedia purely as a forum for political point-scoring and the odd bit of playground name-calling, and frankly If you're going to persist in this sort of behaviour I think we'd be better off without you. Sikandarji 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Gunga Din-ish intervention, Sikanderji. Aggressive, nationalist and ill-informed??? Well, what have I written that is ill-informed? You are the one who sees this as domain where the view of the imperialists must prevail. Some random trailer trash dude comes in and hurls abuses at me - what am I supposed to do - thank him. I live in India; you don't. You may be inclined to please the imperialists - that does not necessarily mean I should be so inclined as well. India is already better off without you, don't ever come back. (Jvalant 11:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC))
A trailer trash dude? In what part of India do you live, Jvalant? West Hollywood!

DylanThomas 12:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More or less everything you've written has been ill-informed, and for evidence I refer the reader not only to your tantrums on this page but to our past debate here: [12]: you compared the work of Rudrangshu Mukherjee and Tapti Roy to Mein Kampf, and called me an "Imperialist bootlicking buffoon", amongst other things. Rather than making any effort to improve the content of the page you only seem interested in trivial questions of nomenclature, and persist in accusing anyone whose views do not conform to the simplistic schoolbook narrative of the events of 1857 of being an 'imperialist', although curiously enough you also denounce the work of Indian historians you disagree with as 'leftist', whilst at the same time citing Karl Marx (erroneously, as it happens) in support of your argument. Where any of us lives is entirely irrelevant to this debate: what matters is the ability to read the relevant historiography and use it dispassionately, without EITHER Nationalist or Imperialist bias, to build a better article. Unfortunately this is an ability which you appear to lack entirely - for you it's all about which side wins. Sikandarji 16:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah - and you conveniently mentioned how Savarkar was "implicated" in the Gandhi assassination. The fact that he was acquitted was irrelevant. Yes, I did compare their work to Mein Kampf and deservedly so. You seem to think that you are the only one who looks at facts through a neutral prism when the fact of the matter is that you choose which sources you feel are correct and which are not. Learn to accept different points of view for a change. (Jvalant 20:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC))

Sikandarji- Believe it or not, I entered this page seeking knowledge. Mea Culpa if I used a very :blunt adjective to describe another contributor, but Australians are noted for intolerance of :Bovine Execrement. I was seeking a sense of place for what led to the horrors of the Cawnpore :Well. I fear I have found it, yet I still do not understand it. I should appreciate any input you :may have. P.S. I am not a (recent) member of the KKK, and I do not live in a trailer- in fact, in :Australia that would be difficult.
DylanThomas 12:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Sikandarji, to put things in right perspective, it was me who gave half a dozen references one of which was Karl Marx, and I see no problem in citing a reference merely because he happened to an idelogist from a different school of thought. Also, if I may dare say so, I did see a lot of demotivating writings from you on the earlier talk pages including the ones that silenced me for quite a while in past when I was fairly new. If I may dare say a little bit more, on a second look at your sermons, they are always tilted in a particular direction to justify a version of the article which any non-Indian or less informed non-resident India would find convincing and any resident non-political Indian would find too incorrect. I wouldnt know your real motives for this, and I am not a party to this, but if Jvalant is using any language, it is more because of provocation than anything else. I dont want to talk about an uneducated egoist hypocrite, who doesnt know the difference between Whites arriving on Columbus' ship to the whites arriving to enslave Red Indians to the White man called George W Bush. And the poor guy came in, to research a subject he knows so little about! Anyways he was only interested in Cawnpore, which is world renowned as a word used by British when torturing their victims during 'Devil's Wind', I can understand his mental capabilities. And I also understand, you may have your own personal reasons to come in support of such an idiot who is turning such a non-issue (according to his own words as well as yours) into such a mess! And Oh Yeah! I havent seen much contribution from you as well, on editing front of the actual article, apart from contributing vigourously on the talk page to kill any other school of thought altogether.

--Bobby Awasthi 14:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, I was referring to the following exchange:
‘Well, first Karl Marx's work "The First Indian War of Independence" clearly calls it a war of independence. He co-authored that with Frank Engels.’ (Jvalant 11:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC))


‘Finally, you are unwise to cite Marx in support of your views. The title given to the Soviet compilation of his and Engels' writings on India (in the original Russian О Национально освободительном восстании 1857-1859гг в Индии (Москва) 1960 - On the National-Liberation uprising of 1857-9 in India) is an invention of his Soviet Editors. In the original letters Marx wrote on the subject for the New York Daily Tribune he simply uses the term "Indian Revolt" (I refer you to the English Edition of Marx & Engels On Colonialism (Moscow) 1959). He also refers to Indians in extremely pejorative terms (he describes Hinduism as "a religion of cruelty" p155), not least because Marx thought British rule in India was "progressive". Sikandarji 13:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
and my point was that there is something rather inconsistent about refusing to accept the work of Roy and Mukherjee on the grounds that they are 'leftist', whilst at the same time comparing their books to Mein Kampf AND then citing Marx in support of his version of 1857 (only the title - which was incorrect - there is no indication that Jvalant has read this, or any of the other works I suggested). I am sorry you do not feel that our exchanges were productive. I reproduce below my response to what you wrote about Cawnpore, which I would have thought made it clear that I am NOT trying to push some 'Imperialist' POV here: it is simply an insult Jvalant sprays around in an effort to make those he disagrees with give up and go away (which I eventually did).
'You're right to draw attention to this Bobby, because this is an episode that attracted particular attention at the time and has raised passions ever since. The British saw the massacre of women and children at Cawnpore as the central deed of violence and immorality which justified not only their subsequent brutal retaliation, but also their rule for the next ninety years. This is why the largest Mutiny Memorial in India was constructed over the well in the Bibi-Ghar into which the bodies were thrown, together with an enormous memorial church in the cantonment (which I visited earlier this year). The problem is that, so far as I am aware, there are no published contemporary accounts in Hindi, Urdu or Persian of what happened, and of the manuscripts and oral traditions the only one I have seen referred to is by one "Nanakchand", whose account is reproduced by G.O. Trevelyan in his Cawnpore. The single eyewitness source upon whom most historians rely for a description of the siege and the initial massacre at the Ghat is Captain Mowbray Thompson's The Story of Cawnpore - he was one of three British officers to escape alive, but of course did not witness the Bibi-ghar massacre. Everything else is derived from the brief appeals for assistance which General Wheeler was able to send out of the entrenchment, the reports of officers and journalists after the recapture of the city and the depositions of sixty-three Indian witnesses from Cawnpore, taken by the British in their enquiry after the capture of the city. These were published by G.W. Forrest in 1902, and I have a copy of the AES reprint. Whilst these are as close as we are likely to get to an account of the siege and massacre from the other side, the manner in which the depositions were taken and the interviews conducted means it is a source which must be handled carefully - I can put in some stuff derived from it if you want. Nobody knows exactly what happened or who was directly responsible; although the Nana Sahib's previous conduct does not suggest that he was a man of any great morality, and as ruler of the city he bore some sort of responsibility for the massacre, we do not know for certain if he ordered it directly. However, even from British accounts we have plenty of evidence that, horrific as the massacre was, the retaliation which followed, not just in Cawnpore but all over Northern India, was even more horrific and resulted in the slaughter of innocent civilians on a massive scale. An profound callousness and easy brutality characterised many British officers who had lived through the Rebellion and in some cases had their families killed, and they responded savagely. W.H. Russell, Harriet Tytler and many others give us ample corroboration of this, and it was widely condemned by many observers at the time. The Indian victims of the British suppression of the Rebellion were much greater in number than the British killed in the initial massacres at Jhansi, Delhi and Cawnpore. The latter, however, have a hundred and fifty year old tradition of tragic narrative behind them. Sikandarji 10:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)'
Frankly I have better things to do than argue the toss with you two - I've provided plenty of references to things you could read if you were actually interested in expanding your knowledge of the subject, and I've been forced to come to the conclusion that you aren't. Sikandarji 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
What better way to insult a Hindu than to compare him to bovine excrement? Of course, that is not very racist nori gnorant but merely adding to the multi-cultural milieu - at least according to Sikanderji. I have a feeling that Dylan Thomas is actually NJW - that would not be surprising - I too would be ashamed about my British "heritage" if I were a Brit. Funny, he chose an Aussie identity given the lack of difference in anything except cricketing skills. I wouldn't recommend anyone wasting time with Sikanderji either - he will rush to Ragib and make a complaint. Obviously insulting someone's religion is not provocation in Sikanderji's book either. Dylan - so what's the Aussie equivalent of the proverbial trailer where you stay? Is it bogan? If you have nothing to add to the First War of Indian Independence, then continue posting your racist messages - I shall have to respond to them in kind. (Jvalant 17:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC))
Dylan Thomas has used some pretty unpleasant language, but the phrase 'bovine excrement' was a thinly-disguised reference to 'bullshit'. I would have thought even you could see that. He's not insulting your religion, merely questioning your level of knowledge and ability to engage in reasoned argument, in which I would say he was entirely justified. Sikandarji 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I request the users to drop the name-calling, and get back to discussing the article. Comment on content, not the person. Thank you. --Ragib 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see far too much energy flowing out in talk page than in the actual article. I had put tags for citations, in the Cawnpore section; many of which were actually cited here in the heat of argument, but never added as the contents of the section in the actual article. I would eventually love to do that, but it would have been a lot more productive to replace the tags with contents and citations with first hand knowledge rather than keep it as a weapon for argument. Jvalant, as far as quoting/referring to Karl Marx is concerned, I am a person who will pick knowledge even if it is in a gutter. I request you to please use polite language with others coz you are only hurting yourself by doing otherwise. Once someone told me, "It is stupidity to argue with a lowly person, he would first get you down to his level and then win coz he has mastered his level." Sikandarji, I dont see any anomaly in not accepting two people who have only written based on read or heard accounts flavoured with their own ideologies, and accepting someone else's work based on a closer view even if he happened to be from the same ideology. That does not gaurantee his ingenuity to me still. Coz I see history as a mere shadow of today and have seen quite a lot of sun and rain to relate today to yesterday and make my own judgements. No grudges, but I would still request you to work on referring and citing to the article wherever you have material. On a lighter vien, NPOV means Neutral Point of View otherwise, we'll be talking again here.

This argument is closed from my end. Thanks for showing neutrality Ragib! --Bobby Awasthi 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I have recently deleted and altered statements which were POV - if these are correct and I am mistaken then I would like some references please. Thanks. (Jvalant 22:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

The brief history of British expansion in India section needs tidying up because the grammar is pretty awlful!

War of Independence

From what I understand, the title of the article is the most commonly used name describing these series of events? So why isn't it War of Independence? That is by far the most common name. (Hanuman420 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC))

This has been discussed before - please see the above dicussions on the naming controversy. From what I can see, "Indian Rebellion of 1867" seems to be a neutral compromise. +A.0u 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Chapattis / lotus flowers / quoting famous line ??

"Chapaties and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "Sub lal hogea hai." (Everything will become Red.), passed around by people from town to town and village to village, as a symbol of the prophecy and a sign of the coming revolt." -- A chapatti is a flat bread. I don't understand how a chapatti or a lotus flower could quote anything. I assume that this means that people circulated chapattis and lotus flowers and ciculated the quote as well, but this really isn't very clear. What part did the chapattis and lotus flowers actually play? -- Writtenonsand 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the quote was passed along by the people who were passing the chapaties and lotuses. Role? Nothing much other than serving to rally the population, give them a heads up that a mutiny was brewing. Kind of like old scottish highland chieftains sending around a burning cross (Crann Tara) to rally their clansmen to war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hserus (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
Chappatis are Indian food, and the lotus is the national flower, both thus exclude the British. As a statement of commensality and nationality without overt religious context, it is fairly clear. Its meaning at the time, and the extent to which it indicated opposition to the British, has been set out in some texts that I've seen before. Imc 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Chapattis were used to conceal a message written on a paper which was then rolled with the chapati. Thus the indians could send messages to each other without the message being detected.But i do not know any thing of this sorts concerned with the lotus flower.(Tanvir)

"Debate over national character" section

  1. Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion, and those that did were basically interested in reviving and reclaiming their own principalities and fiefdoms, not in creating a United India;
  2. The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s;
  3. The Westernised intellectuals supported the British; however, an exception to this rule was Azimullah Khan, a Westernised rebel supporter.

Where are the sources which point to these alleged facts? Or are these points merely the product of a very fertile imagination? And what exactly is a "westernized intellectual"? Besides, the Bombay naval "mutiny" proves that the army did indeed participate in the Nationalist movement, as do soldiers of the INA who moved from the British to the Indian side. I shall be deleting the points, unless someone proves otherwise. Thanks. (Jvalant 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC))

Those deletes would be just as short sighted and ill advised as the rest of the edits you've made in this document so far, so I'd advise you - dont. As for the bombay naval ratings mutiny and indian soldiers who ere Japanese POWs joining the INA, that was in the mid 1940s, almost 90 years after the events of 1857. So what you cite is not valid here, or relevant to this discussion at all. srs 10:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Do you have any counterpoints or merely advice? Read the section again. "The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s". It is obvious this is the same movement which culminated with the Quit India movement. Since, no one has come up with any valid points, I shall take them off. (Jvalant 13:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC))

The statement "A united India did not exist at that time in political terms" is misleading and mischievous in this context. Consider the circulation of chapatis and lotus blossoms. The worrisome element of the whole circulation process, as far as the British were concerned, was it's extent and speed. Surely, a set of symbols with a common meaning across the sub-continent argues for a pan-indian consciousness independent of the British colonial identity? The insidiousness of the comment has to do with the qualifier "in political terms". Consider the greek city states combining against the Persians to see how ridiculous this statement is.

Could someone help me identify the source and significance of the "sab lal ho gaeya hai?" (incorrectly translated as "will" instead of "has" in the article) quote? This.is.abhishek.datta 07:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mr. Basu - stop vandalizing the page. Please build a consensus first. (Jvalant 06:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Absurd causes

"Indians were unhappy with the heavy-handed rule of the Company which had embarked on a project of rather rapid expansion and westernisation. This included the outlawing of many religious customs, both Muslim and Hindu, which were viewed as uncivilized by the British. This included a ban on sati (suicidal widow burning)" Is it being said that the abolition of Sati actually resulted in the War of Independence? Where is the source for this ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Here is a source: India Rising
It was believed that the British were seeking to destroy traditional Indian religious and cultural customs. One concern was that the British were trying to force conversion to Christianity upon the Indian people. The political and legal systems were seen as inherently biased towards the British. The East India Company, formed to trade in India, now effectively ruled much of India.
Changes introduced by the British, such as outlawing sati (the ritual burning of widows) and child marriage, may have been well-meaning but they were imposed without any regard for Indian tradition or culture. They were seen as a westernising policy and there was a widespread feeling that the traditional Indian way of life was under threat.
No single factor was in itself enough to start a revolt, but the cumulative effect meant that all that was needed was a catalyst to turn discontent amongst the sepoys into a much more serious affair.
Hope that helps --Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First War

If this was the First War of Indian Independence what was the Second War of Indian Independence and has there been a Third War? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Great War did not need a Greater War or Greatest War to be called so. The actions of INA and the Quit India movement can be termed as a the Second War of Independence cumulatively, but that is not how they are known, just as the Second World War is not known as a Greater War. (Jvalant 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

Aesthetics

Also, don't change the introduction without stating your reasons and discussing them. (Jvalant 22:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC))

I gave a full explanation in the edit history: "If the Hindi text is going to be in the article as it appears as a line of blocks if the correct fonts are not available to a browser, it is best that it goes last in the list" it was a good faith edit, and until someone objects there is no reason to discuss such an edit on the talk page, so I am not sure why you reverted the changes with this comment "Reverting vandalism". As the edit does not alter the information in the sentence, I am not sure why you called it vandalism.
I have put back my alteration because as I said in the edit summary unless the correct font is loaded into the browser the foreign script comes out as a line of squares. If it is to remain in the introduction it is better that it goes at the end of the sentence because otherwise it breaks up the sentence with the equivalent of this (Hindi: #### ## ##### ###### ########## #######). As there is a text box next to the introduction that narrows the width of the space in which the introduction is displayed the Hindi characters (that appear as boxes with four small numbers in them) have the effect of drawing a very thick line on the screen. Usually in names this is not a problem because the number of characters is small, but in this case 30+ characters is aesthetically the equivalent of a line so it is better that it goes at the end of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

All browsers support the text, unless someone is using an ancient version of a browser like Mosaic or some such. As it is, the more commonly used term - War of Independence should come before racist terms like "Mutiny". (Jvalant 19:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC))

War of Independence is not the more commonly used term, and the term "mutiny," which refers to soldiers or sailors rebelling against the authorities they are serving, has no discernable racist content - it is demonstrably true that the events of 1857 included a mutiny by Sepoy soldiers in the employ of the East India Company. "Indian Mutiny" is, at any rate, quite clearly the "more commonly used term," and ought to be mentioned first. As to the browser issue, I cannot say. My browser certainly shows Devanagari script properly. It does not show Chinese script correctly (it always appears as a serious of question marks "???"), but this has not stopped all articles on those subjects from giving the Chinese form rather prominently. john k 22:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I am using Firefox (latest version) and not all character sets are downloaded for all languages by default, with the very good reason that they take up a lot of space, and for most languages it is not necessary, unless one can read the language. As I said above, the problem is the number of characters, they read like a very thick line if the font is not downloaded. If the Hindi characters are not going to be deleted (and I don't see why they should) it is better for aesthetic reasons if they go at the end of the sentence. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about it further, it strikes me that the Hindi characters ought to be deleted. For comparable historical events see French Revolution, Russian Revolution of 1917, Unification of Germany, and so forth. None of them give the native name for the thing in the intro. Only proper names should be given the native form, I think, not events. john k 15:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For comparable historical events, one can refer to the Great Leap Forward too where the Chinese script is used. It is better to refer to Asian events, rather than European events as the War of Independence happened in Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

(Jvalant 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Please explain why it is appropriate to use the Hindi name for this rebellion, but not the Russian name for the Russian revolution. I fail to see how there could possibly be an argument in favor of such a double standard. as for the Great Leap Forward, that is rather closer to being a proper name than this is. john k 19:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for goog faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". I am reverting to the last edit before you accused people of vandalism. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

John what about WP:UE "However, any non-Latin-alphabet native name should be given within the first line of the article (with a Latin-alphabet transliteration if the English name does not correspond to a transliteration of the native name)." --Philip Baird Shearer 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Philip, my interpretation would be that the whole of WP:UE's requirements to give native forms is a requirement that only applies to proper names of people or places, and not to everything. We don't, after all, require the Hindi form of "History of India", for instance. The Hindi name for a historical event has precisely zero use for anyone, and can, at any rate, be easily found by anyone by clicking the interwiki link. Especially for an event like this, which has numerous different names, listing a Hindi name seems completely unnecessary. And, as noted, there's plenty of precedent for this in other articles on events occurring in non-English-speaking countries. john k 21:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that is a reasonable argument. I also think that we should restrict the names used in the first paragraph to the two main alternatives and keep the rest in the "Debate over name" section.--Philip Baird Shearer 10:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)




More people on this planet refer to these series of events as the First War of Indian Independence than the racist terms which are being used here. What you John K is engaging in is vandalism and nothing else. I shall revert it back to its original form. (Jvalant 20:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

Philip, why has the fairly common term "Sepoy Rebellion" been removed from the intro? Why is the less common "First War of Indian Independence" listed before the more common "Indian Mutiny"? john k 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a judgement that "Indian Mutiny" is far more common than "Sepoy Rebellion" etc, so rather than have lots of names for the thing cluttering up the intro, I thoutht it best to put them all into the name explantion section. I put the "First War of Indian Independence" first as a way of causing least offense to some other editors of this page (I have things I would rather do than have an edit wa over this). My judgement on this was partially influenced by http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/pages/indiaRising/ --Philip Baird Shearer 18:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Dude, we are going around in circles. The Great Leap Forward is an Asian example and so can be used as an example. India IS an English-speaking nation, with English being one of the official languages of India. "First War of Independence" is a more common term. Most people on this planet who know about these series of event know of it as the "First War of Independence". The Aesthetics point, is a matter of opinion. It is biased not to have the Hindi wording in the first line when it is present in the Great Leap Forward. I am putting it back in. We can go around in circles if you want. (Jvalant 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC))
Why replace did you replace Indian mutiny with sepoy rebellion? --Philip Baird Shearer 20:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
'coz I find the term "mutiny" racist. If you go to the page for African-American, do you see the word "nigger" used in the first paragraph? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 21:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Jvalant, stop using racism as an excuse to get your own way. Personally I am finding your behaviour racist and the very reason why there is a growing sense of muticultural resentment in the western world today. [Ata 20/05/2007]

Ata, LOL - I am the reason why there is a growing sense of multicultural resentment in the western world today? I find your comment and behavior not only racist but also stupid. Perhaps the two go hand in hand. Nor do I honestly give a f... about multicultural resentment in some has-been nation. The Indian perspective can't be swept under the carpet to make a small useless nation feel better about its has-been status. Jvalant 23:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, you have made this allegation on more than one occasion that mutiny equals racism. Previously I have given quotes from a dictionary to indicate that there is no linkage between the meaning of the two words. Look at these dictionary definitions:

  • Mutiny: “when a group of people, especially soldiers or sailors, refuse to obey orders and/or attempt to take control from people in authority” Cambridge Dictionaries Online
  • Mutiny: ”an open rebellion against authority, especially by soldiers or sailors against their officers” [Oxford English Dictionary
  • Racism: “the belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races” Cambridge Dictionaries Online
  • Racism: “the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race” Oxford English Dictionary

Now I am quite sure that plenty of quotes could be found to show that the British Officers of the Bengal Army were racist and made racist statements - but that is a different argument and not the point that you seem to be making.

If you are looking for a racist equivalent of "nigger", which you keep quoting as an example, then you should probably be looking for the word "coolie" which, certainly in my country, would be considered as insulting as "nigger" and equally as unacceptable. In fact, both the dictionaries referred to above indicate that these words are 'offensive'. It does not say any similar such thing about the word 'mutiny'. Whether dude is considered offensive or not, I wouldn't know because I don't speak American. I had to look it up and found that is an American term, but the dictionary says "probably from German dialect Dude ‘fool’".

Trying to change the meaning of words from their accepted and understood meaning does not help to clarify the issues. Your reasons for arguing against using the word 'mutiny' are not, as I understand it, because the word is racist but because you see this uprising not a an isolated event, which is how it would have been presented in British history books of the time, but as part of a wider struggle and resistance of Indians against foreign domination. I think this perspective is lost every time you wander off into the racist argument.

I made some suggestions on this Talk page about developing a more comprehensive article on Indian Resistance to Colonialism which would enable the events of 1857 to be put into a broader perspective (see The Jat Records later down on this page). Personally, I don't have the knowledge or information to write such an article. But it is clear from contributions to this page there there are people who probably can.

Why not concentrate on developing the bigger picture because that will clearly show that 1857 was part of the continuing resistance to British Imperialism. That would have far more effect on readers understanding of the significance of 1857 than the constant and repetitive debate about the name of this article and the insults and personal abuse that are generated by that. - Dave Smith 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said that the word mutiny is itself racist. It's use to describe The War of Independence amounts to racism. A concentration camp is not a racist term; however the Nazis who kept Jews and other minorities in these concentration camps were racist. I hope you understand the difference. Jvalant 21:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote you: "I find the term "mutiny" racist". But ... let us not wander off down what is really a diversion. Why not pick up on the suggestion that I made about a new article on Indian resistance to colonialism. This would, in my view, be a lot more productive in showing the reality of this uprising and put it into the perspective of where it fits into what was a continuing resistance to foreign intervention and British Imperialism. Can't you start to write any article along these lines? There is plenty of information on this page and reference has been made to other "mutinies" and acts of resistance which are all part of the process. - Dave Smith 21:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Then let me re-phrase" "I find the use of the term "mutiny" to describe "The First War of Indian Independence" racist. "Indian Resistance to British Colonialism" is a good idea. Jvalant 22:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Then why don't you start writing such an article? I am no expert on Indian history and so I cannot do this. But let me make this point. I had a British education (which was many years ago now) and I was taught about the "Indian Mutiny". Now that is not surprising because when I was at school there were still the left overs of a "British Empire" and I can even remember "Empire Day". It was not until I read some of the contributions on this Talk page about other uprisings and resistance to the British in India that I began to know about this. I understand that the history of the oppressed (workers, women, minorities, colonialised people - the list is endless) is never written by the victors and so the fact that I did not specifically know these other events does not surprise me. Because I am now more aware of these other events I can see more easily how 1857 could be described as a WOI. In other words, the real history shows that it was not an isolated event which is how it is often presented.
What has to be remembered is that whilst, in India, this other information may be more common knowledge (and therefore lead Indian readers of Wikipedia to find the WOI title a more natural one) other readers of Wikipedia will not have this information. People turn to Wikipedia for information and just calling an article WOI does not provide the background to explain the title. This is why I am repeatedly pushing for an article to put 1857 into this broader perspective of resistance to imperialism. It would immensely increase readers understanding of the anti-imperialist struggle and put 1857 into that setting. It would also help to put the title of WOI in a more coherent framework. I would say, write the article, then changing the name will have a more rational and objective basis. - Dave Smith 14:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I was suggesting an article dealing with colonialism entirely not just British colonialism. You can't forget the Portuguese and French. - Dave Smith 22:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Does this १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम mean "Indian Rebellion of 1857" If not then why is it placed before "also commonly known as the First War of Indian Independence, and as the Indian Mutiny"? --Philip Baird Shearer 23:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Debate over name of conflict

Please don't delete the quotes. How are they irrelevant? (Jvalant 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC))

As I said in the edit histoy "What someone said at the time of the rebellion [,in a section] on the current name of the article is irrelevent". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit by User:Hserus

Referring to your contention that newspaper citation is not valid, I am quoting here from Wikipedia:Libel about WHAT qualifies to be cited:

The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point-of-view style of prose, with all information being referenced through the citation of reliable published sources, so as to maintain a standard of verifiability.

I am quoting here from Source text (reached after clicking on the word sources above, about your contention that newspapers do not qualify as source text: Secondary sources are written accounts of history based upon the evidence from primary sources. For example a history book drawing upon diary and newspaper records.

Further on clicking Secondary sources we reach the definition: A secondary source is a study written by a scholar about a topic, and using primary sources and other secondary sources.

An example of a secondary source is the biography of a historical figure in which the author constructs a narrative out of a variety of primary source documents, such as letters, diaries, newspaper accounts, photographs, and official records. A scholarly secondary source is familiar with the existing secondary literature and seeks to engage it in terms of arguments and evidence. Most, but not all, secondary sources utilize extensive citation. Scholarly secondary sources are peer-reviewed by scholars before publication in book or article form, and books are reviewed and evaluated in the scholarly journals.

MY EDITS QUALIFY UNDER THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS. Discuss before reverting anything, dont make rules on your own simply because you know you will get support from former colonial masters and current bosses. History, howsoever good or bad, should be told from both POVs to make it NPOV. --Bobby Awasthi 08:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits should be verifiable, and should cite reputable and accurate sources of information. And primary sources, preferably from peer reviewed history publications or contemporary source material, like for example a newspaper article from the period under discussion, carry far more weight than ill informed and badly written newspaper articles. Please respect the spirit of wikipedia rather than simply quoting wikipedia regs to justify poorly unsourced and POV edits. srs 11:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I would beg to defer from your version of spirit of wikipedia. How is a contemporary British author or even a contemporary other language wikipedia (See talk history, often quoted to justify the name of this article) more qualified and a Professor of History from a reputed college in Kanpur (whose article I had read and cited) poorly unsourced and ill-informed? You mean to say that world's largest readership Hindi Newspaper is ill-informed and badly-written?--Bobby Awasthi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
If there's a choice between a newspaper article citing what a local professor has written, and the actual paper the professor wrote and published, which was then subject to peer review, I'd suggest that you quote the professor rather than the newspaper. Do remember that a high circulation figure doesn't always equate to journalistic quality, and that a primary source is always preferable. srs 01:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Bobby Awasthi with regards to your using vandalism in the edit history, did you not see the entry posted by be above: Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for good faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".? --Philip Baird Shearer
I have surely overlooked Philip and I would refrain from using the words again. Also, the name reversion was not intentional.--Bobby Awasthi 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Vote

I would like to take on vote -

I think the title of this article should be changed to - The First War of Indian Independence, as it is officially known as that in India. According to Wikipedia policy, the most commonly used name should be associated with an article. In this case, in India (an English-speaking nation) it is most commonly known as "The First War of Indian Independence". I assume 24 hours should be enough to take a vote.

I vote in favor of it being changed. (Jvalant 20:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Things are not decided on Wikipedia by taking a "vote", they are taken by seeking a consensus (See Wikipedia:Consensus ). If this is to progress any further then it should be throught a WP:RM request with multiple options (as it might be decided to move the article back to Indian Mutiny or to some other name)
This issue has been discussed many times before See
Talk:Indian Mutiny
Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 1
current archive
and probably some more that I have missed
What has made you put forward this proposal given that you wrote higher up this page:
I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))
--Philip Baird Shearer 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this thousands of times on Wikipedia. Just because a national Government commands that all call a city/river/war/whatever does not mean that it should be changed. See Kiev's talk page for a beautiful example. --RaiderAspect 08:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
My 2 cents. Revolt of 1857 is the most common name in India AFAIK. Rebellion of 1857 is OK. But, First War of Independence is not right title, as this is not how even Indian history students call this. It might indeed be a First War and has a great significance to the freedom movement later. But, this could be explained in the text and having this as a title could confuse most readers, at the least. The meaning and purport of the Rebellion will be not diminished if it is called a Mutiny. 131.107.0.73 02:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I wrote the above comment and forgot to sign in, when signed the comment. Balajiviswanathan 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Balajiviswanathan; I have also studied history in India and I think my memory has not faded. Tell me the books 20-25 years back that called it the rebellion or mutiny? I still distinctly remember it was called First War of Independence. By the way this was way before anything called BJP or Hindu Nationalism was visible.
--Bobby Awasthi 16:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I have cited this page as NPOV because there is a considerable amount of assertion unsupported by references, there is a lot of usage of POV terms and this talk page indicates that there are very entrenched and POV attitudes on both sides. It needs someone not involved in the current disputes to step in and make a review of the article rather than something that panders either to nationalist Indian or nationalist British attitudes. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be statements of fact and not polemic. This article fails dismally on that regard. Iain1917 07:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For a start the intro is clearly biased towards Indian nationalism, as it seeks to give the impression that the rebellion was widespread across India, whereas the map shows very clearly that it was highly localised. Nathanian 10:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree, clearly a lot of work has gone into this article and no offence to the major contributors, but at the moment it is a bit of a mess. At a glance the Cawnpore section looks like it was written seperately by two people with opposing viewpoints and then dumped together without the sides being connected up (or sourced). It might even be better (hardly ideal but at least less subject to edit wars than this) to have two articles - "Indian interpretations of the 1857 Rebellion" and "Western interpretations of the 1857 Rebellion".--Jackyd101 11:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
A somewhat tempting suggestion, especially given that I sense an edit war coming on. But really, if we get to the stage where we have to have seperate articles for different points of view, we may as well unconditionally surrender and declare that the Wikipedia project has failed under the weight of extremism and soapboxing. --RaiderAspect 12:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the article is bias- and peppered with often absurd hindu nationalist views, but it is wrong to even say pro-Indian because that implies the attempt to restore moghul rule is pro indian -what about the Sikhs who were loyal to the British side because they saw the restoration of Moghul rule as far worse for "India" (if such an entity really existed at the time.Mywikieditor2007 15:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of bull. I see this article as heavily biased on the British perspective, while sweeping the Indian POV under the carpet. Funny that the two articles proposed say "Indian POV" and "Western POV" as if the British POV is for the entire western world, while the Indian one is only confined to India. It should either be "British POV" and "Indian POV" OR "Eastern POV" and "Western POV". It does seem peppered with absurd Christian nationalist views rather than Hindu ones.

When the Japanese wish to honor their soldiers in WW-2 it creates a massive uproar in areas like China and Korea, and understandably so. Has there been even a token protest from the British Govt regarding India celebrating it as the First War of Independence? This shows they agree to the Indian POV. I don't see the Brits celebrating the 150th anniversary of "putting down the mutiny", the same way that they celebrated the WW-2 anniversary. The racism of the British posters on this article message-board is sickening to say the least. Wikipedia rules clearly state than an article should be known by its most common name. The most common name happens to be the First War of Independence. This is what it is called in all Indian textbooks in schools and universities. Why this British bias? It's disgusting. (Jvalant 17:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

Well, I'm Italian and I can assure you that I never heard of the First Indian War of Indipendence. I just checked, and in all my history textbooks and in a couple of encyclopedias these events are always referred as "rivolta dei sepoys," which could be translated as "Sepoys revolt". One encyclopedia mentioned also the English word "mutiny." GhePeU 17:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
If I were to be generous, then even if the entire population of Europe of about 660 odd million who MAY use "mutiny", it still is lesser than a billion indians, not to mention the rest of the peoples of the sub-continent. Jvalant 18:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all Indians taught in English and do they read the history of the period in English, or is it only a minority on the Indian Subcontinent who read and write about the rebellion in English? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Just an anecdote, of which i am not sure

"It was also rumoured that the British had started to issue new gunpowder cartridges that had cow and pig fat on them, which insulted both Hindus and Muslims.". The reason that was offensive is mainly because they had to bite the cartridges to open them, hence "eating" pig. 213.31.11.80 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Are all Europeans taught in English? If the Italian translation of "rivolta dei sepoys," is acceptable, then the translation of १८५७ का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतंत्रता संग्राम should also be acceptable. As a medium of instruction, more Indians study in English than Brits. It is also the medium of instruction in all universities. Jvalant 18:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the intro is heavily biased towards Indian nationalism, even by normal Indian standards. I studied all my history in India, and we the textbooks called it the "Revolt of 1857", not even remotely mentioning any "Independence movement" nature of the event. Around 10 years have passed since then, and it looks like these textbooks have suffered at the hands of right-wing nationalist revisionism to a great extent. I think the impact of this nationalistic revisionism is clearly evident on wikipedia. deeptrivia (talk) 02:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, it might be that now the Indians have started using the correct terms, now that the left-wingers and imperialist bootlickers are no longer relevant. Jvalant 04:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Lets not attempt too count the number of english speakers in the world. It's not relevant in the slightest (see plenty of examples of that WP:LAME). Unless there is evidence that the majority (or at least a plurality) of scholarly sources refer to the conflict as the First War of Indian Independence, the name of this page is probably not going to change. Jvalant, you probably should review WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK. Personal attacks and blanket statements are NOT helpful. --RaiderAspect 05:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you review it yourself. (Jvalant 10:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC))

well there seems to have been a lot of debate already . But I think you should consider this: Can the involvement of Bhadurshah, Rani Laxmibai, Tatya Tope and others really fall in the context of "rebellion". They weren't soldiers or generals in the British Army. So how can they be clubbed as rebels? Their actions cannot be termed rebellion, rather , at least in their case it was a war of independce.. The rebellion of Indian soldiers was a part of War of Independence. An attempt to overthrow a colonial power , even by soldiers in their army is more than just a small rebellion. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Jvalant, I am familar with WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK. Do you feel that I have breached them?
Deepak, rebellion and war of independence are extremely similar terms. Unlike mutiny rebellion doesn't refer to soldiers who have turned against their former commanders, rather it refers to an attempt to unseat the existing government (for the sake of cross reference, see Irish Rebellion of 1798). Indian Rebellion of 1857 appears to be the most accepted academic term for the conflict, thus it is the article title. War of Indepedence and Mutiny (if only in primary sources and earlier secondary ones) are relatively common names as well, thus they are mentioned in the intro too prevent confusion. --RaiderAspect 10:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you on the Mutiny- rebellion difference, but that is not my point. My point is that the mutiny itself wasn't the War of Independence(as we Indians preffer calling it) , rather it was a sub-part of it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policy is to use the most commonly used term, not one that is most commonly academically accepted. As I said, the term "Indian mutiny" is offensive and racist. Why don't you change the African-American article intro to include the word "Negro" or "nigger"? (Jvalant 11:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC))
Deepak, I dont disagree with you, but the fact that it's a relatively common term for the Indian Rebellion means we really have to have it in the intro. See for instance the Second Boer War/The Boer War/Anglo-Boer War/South African War; contary to it's names there were a lot of people who were not Boers or even Anglo's involved. The fact that the mutiny was just part of the wider rebellion is addressed in the article. But BECAUSE many people and many sources know it as the Indian Mutiny or Sepoy Mutiny, we really have to mention it in the intro.
Jvalant, the existing consensus is that "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is the most widespread term. From what I can see that was confirmed by the RFC a few short months ago. Regarding your argument that Indian Mutiny is offensive, that is merely your personal opinion. Practically everything on Wikipedia is offensive to an indeterminate number of people. Naming the conflict Indian Mutiny, while strictly speaking inaccurate is common. Thus it will remain. Be aware that you are in danger of breaching WP:3RR.
Incidently I note that Negro is used on numerous occasions on the African American page. --RaiderAspect 11:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, that should've been WP:NOT#CENSORED in my edit summary. Opps --RaiderAspect 11:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Not me, it is you who are about to breach it. The words "nigger" or "negro" are not mentioned in the opening intro. Similarly, you can mention "Indian mutiny" in the other sections. By placing it in the intro, you are claiming that it is still an acceptable term, which it is not. Stop vandalizing this page over and over again. Jvalant 11:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
And I did check the WP:NOT#CENSORED section. Thanks. Wikipedia's servers are located in Florida and hence under the jurisdiction of Florida law. Since racism is a crime in the state of Florida, calling it a "Mutiny" is not only insulting but apparently also criminal. Jvalant 11:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, please WP:AGF. I would also ask you too consider Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal". You are not helping by accusing myself and other users of vandalism.

It is Wikipedia policy to list common alternative names in introductions. This is the case even if the said alternate names could concievably be offensive (cross ref: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/[Mormon Church]]). --RaiderAspect 13:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, when persons in uniform 'rebel' or for reasons good or bad, it is called a mutiny in English. Your statement about Florida were to apply many people of English extraction could apply it to your statements.. in the wiki entry on mutiny the 1905 battleship Potemkin is mentioned: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutiny which was later 'seized' by Bolsheviks much in the same way Hindu Nationalists are doing with the '57 Mutiny.

Will the author of the above explain his statement, "Hindu Nationalists are doing with the '57 Mutiny." I consider this WP:ATTACK

OK Raider, I really feel that this article should be moved to "1857 War of Independence" or "First Indian War of Independence". Even if I were to put sentiment aside and analyse the issue, the rebellion(or mutiny) was a smaller part of the War for Independence. Since there has already been a lot of discussion prior to this I won't push this issue further.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In support of the move, I would like to point out the American Revolution and the 1857 War of Independence had the same idealogies. Gdalal 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The article American Revolution is not the same thing as the American War of Independence/American Revolutionary War. If the article had started life as American War of Independence it would probably still be there, but not been moved. Respecting the MOS on national differences it has remained at American Revolutionary War even though the article is not about war of revolution but a war of independence, (as once the war of independence was won the Americans were free chose if they wanted a revolutionary government or a facsimile of what was there before) --Philip Baird Shearer 14:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

A load of bovine excrement from User:Deeptrivia. The text books 25 years back when i was studying histoy, also clearly mentioned it First Indian War of Independence. Maybe deeptrivia was studying in one of those missionary convent which taught that Brahmins ate beef in mideival times and Sikh Gurus were herds of robbers. Nathanian believes a British made map more than his own family and school. Another missionary position ;) Who says the rebellion or war or whatever you call it under instructions; was localized? The biggest argument in favour of this statement is that sikhs did not participate. But, my knowledgeable friends, sikhs had in fact started an earlier war in 1845[[13]]/[[14]]/[[15]], though that one is not called as the war since it was punjab specific and the sikhs lost so badly, the king was absolutely at the mercy of British to have any army any more. How could the war have spread into a region that had just lost one. Now if someone quotes Kashmir. Well, the famous forefathers of Karn Singh or Hari Singh were the ones who sold off Punjab to get prize of Kashmir from British. Still Punjab was not completely wary of the so-called mutiny. The official website of Gurdaspur mentions the role, however small. [[16]] The mutinee of 1857 also affected Gurdaspur. The mutineers from Sialkot proceeded towards Gurdaspur. The British forces intercepted these mutineers at Trimmo Patan and defeated them in the battle of Trimmo Patan (12 July- 16 July 1857). The prisoners were hanged in Bole Wala Bagh situated behind Government College Gurdaspur. So where is Gurdaspur? Not in Punjab? And the map does show NARGUND. Would you locate it in north? And by the way, where are Midnapore & Barrackpore on that map? And believe me Mr. Philip Biard Shearer, the medium of instruction at my school was definitely the language you insist on being world's language. How that supports my or your arguments is another story though! By the way, your arguments on American War context are highly technical and not responsive to Gdalal's argument. BTW, I have just reverted one small edit by Dick Kimball relating to Nana Saheb permitting the British to leave. Unfortunately, however offensive it may be to my friend Dick, a beseigned army commander who had handed over his treasury weeks ago, is NOT in a position to ask or get PROMISED anything. The correct statement stays to mean that NANA SAHEB ALLOWED BRITISH TO LEAVE KANPUR. Not that the British WERE PROMISED BY NANA SAHEB. Which one shows gilmpses of racism and which one shows logical reasoning? --Bobby Awasthi 16:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, as more and more Indians come here with the media trumpeting it as a the 150th anniversary of the WOI, it will become increasingly difficult to hold on to the "Indian Mutiny" line. Anyways, I am removing the hindi line and and putting forth the more common "WOI" before the racist "Indian Mutiny". I am not going to remove it as some imperialists do want it there. However, I shall require an explanation as to why that racist term needs to be in the intro, while "Negro" or "nigger" is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of the "African American" article. Jvalant 07:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
You cannot assume that all those who added the recent links to the media are Indian - Dave Smith 11:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Bobby, rest assured Philip will change it back in the name of "aesthetics". Apparently, the "natives" have no sense of aesthetics at all. :) Jvalant 07:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Jvalant, unfortunately or fortunately, this is the 150th anneversary year of 1857 war, the celebrations in India have just begun. With every single dignitary referring to the event as the War of Independence, with more and more media references piling up, some, if not all will accept the actual NPOV or what can be simply called truth. So far not a single issue has come up between British & Indian governments. I believe this is one rare article where hundreds of references have not been able to sort the issue. But luckily now we have a situation where huge number of government POVs from both sides are also getting available every off and on. Our job is to only keep referring. --Bobby Awasthi 13:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave Smith, it IS an INDIAN topic. Who else will provide the matter? Or do you think the ENTIRE INDIAN MEDIA is biased and has a non-neutral POV?. Even if that is true, the POV of media representing 1 billion plus is definitely worth quoting and utilizing. --Bobby Awasthi 13:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see from reading through the previous postings on this page that this is, understandably, a very emotive topic. I was simply responding to the contribution from Jvalant on 13 May 2007 that "... as more and more Indians come here with the media trumpeting it as a the 150th anniversary of the WOI ..." which I took to be a reference to the recent additions to the External Links making links to the various BBC reports about the celebrations of the uprising. I was simply making the point that it cannot be assumed that these would have been added by Indian editors/readers. I really cannot see the link between my very mild contribution and the assertion that " ... do you think the ENTIRE INDIAN MEDIA is biased and has a non-neutral POV?." Quite how you would know what I think about the Indian media from my contribution I do not know. - Dave Smith 14:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave Smith, the purpose of the page is healthy discussion. No matter what we say, every editor or writer as a POV. It is human. Anything to do with own country is obviously emotional. My assertion was only to assert that the important thing is to quantify the Indian media or Indian contributors without bothering about whether the citation came from an Indian or British or African. This was nothing personal to you although the sentence did start with your name. Rest assured, I will be as respectful to you as you are to myself or others. Apologies if you felt anything wrong in my wordings. Obviously, according to some editors on this talk page, Indian English is not up to the mark. Oh yeah! that does not imply we will accept biased POV in English, this is again not directed at you personally. --Bobby Awasthi 06:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course people have a POV and they should be able to express it without SHOUTING. But Wikipedia is supposed to be developing articles which are encyclopedic in nature. Your statement that "it IS an INDIAN topic. Who else will provide the matter?" cannot really be true in this context. This is a historical event which had a significant impact at the time and subsequently. But it's impact was not just on India and Indian history but on Britain and what was then the British Empire too. There can be no doubt that this major challenge to the Colonial Authorities would have caused serious concern to Britain which would, at the time, have seen it as very threatening and would have developed strategies and policies in response. That is history. That is seeing an event in its broader context.
On your point that "My assertion was only to assert that the important thing is to quantify the Indian media" I was primarily responding to the fact that the only media references in the External Links section of the article were from the BBC. There seem to be no references or links to the Indian media - and I am sure there must have been plenty available during the 150th anniversary.
I am in Trinidad and we have similar issues with descriptions. A key event for us is a widespread strike n 1937 which laid the foundation for the modern trade union movement in this country. The Colonial Authorities called it a "labour riot" whereas the trade union movement calls it a "labour uprising".
George Orwell, in his book Nineteen Eighty-Four made an interesting observation that "He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." (See the article Philosophy of history). That is really what we are seeing in this debate. The British version of this piece of history was dominant for a long time because Britain controlled the past (they remained to colonial authority for many decades) but is now changing because, since Indian political independence, the owners of the present have a different view of the past. - Dave Smith 12:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I am not that much into books, pun intended. Well, I think a bit less literally and more practically. The quote from George Orwell is probably inappropriate. I would rather say it is a case of blatant misinformation and deliberate ignorance which is being revisited to give justice to the truth. And I would quote an appropriate reference from real life. Please take time and see The Thin Blue Line (documentary). Alternatively, you may also presume that Indians have far outgrown the intelligence which so far misguided the world on their own history. I would rather think that information is no more a slave of the priviledged few. --Bobby Awasthi 18:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh and with some amusement I did notice that one of the users posting here commented to another on his talk page, that Indians like Jvalant living abroad are far more nationalistic than residents of India. Funny, last I checked Bombay was still in India. (Jvalant 18:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC))
Dave Smith, I guess the Brits just need to come to terms with the fact that their nation is now a has-been. Why should Indian perspective suffer so that the Brits can see themselves as something beyond America's pet poodle?

Jvalant 19:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Has-Been? Maybe so, but at least they had a prime. When was yours? Was it when you were under British rule, or was it when you were under the boot of the Mughals? Or is it now, when you're answering help desk calls using fake American accents and fake American names? Stop back in about 20 years, when the US and Europe have found an even cheaper nation from which to draw their cut-rate IT talent. Then we can talk about has-beens.
FIRST: Get the balls to sign your response. I dont know if other editors would like to consider your neo-nazism acceptable in European standards. As far as answering your questions is concerned, in shortest sentence, the prime of India was, is, and will remain until the British queen's crown shines with the Kohinoor technically gifted and actually stolen / snatched / begged for / duped from Indians. Read the history of India and you would realize that its prime started even before the barbarians were thrown out of what is now called UK. Also, read British history so you could realize that a large part of what you call industrial revolution was funded by British occupation of India. And oh yeah! your last two sentences show clearly the reasons for your current nationalism. Lost your job? Or should we call Bangalored? Come on, Indians did not concieve WTO or Free Trade regimes. Go crib in front of World Bank or IMF. After all they are still ruled by Europe and US. There is Talent, Cut-rate or whatever, thanks for agreeing on your inferiority though I dont insist all others from your surroundings are inferior too. --Bobby Awasthi 06:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I usually don't respond to cowards who don't sign in. LOL - Last I heard it was Indian firms buying out your firms like Corus, Tetley and Whyte and Mackay. I guess the peak of your island is your nation being nothing but America's bitch, your soldiers offering themselves as cannon-fodder for American "friendly-fire" and your Prime Minister addressed by George Bush as "Yo Blair!" It's the Brits who put on a fake American accent, else no one would understand the dreadful accents you Brits have. Your country is a has-been and now America's little bitch - you are irrelevant in today's world. Get over it. Jvalant 09:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so there is no insistence that all of us from certain surroundings are inferior? Note who it was that first began the rounds of name-calling and stereotyping in this thread... or was 'has-been' and 'pet poodle' meant in a nice way? How can people not escalate the language when you use dialogue like that? There are more important things than this to get angry about these days, but this issue will never be able to be discussed rationally as long as you're throwing gasoline on the fire to satisfy your own personal insecurities.
Note... sorry to disappoint you, but I am employed and doing quite well. The mostly low-end IT jobs that have gone to India are not jobs that I would want - help desk work for $10/hour? No, thank you. And if you want to think that most of those jobs won't leave as quickly as they arrived, then who am I to correct you?
I don't have an ID on wiki. If actual dialogue starts happening here as opposed to the vitriol that I'm seeing now, then I'll be more than happy to get one. If every point I make can be proven wrong, then I will have learned something and be a better person. I won't get mad at that. But until then, I won't waste the effort.
That is a downright laughable post once again. Are we asking your hopeless nation to bring jobs here? First you come begging looking for Indians to fill positions as your nationals are utterly incompetent. Why don't you take those jobs and shove them? We couldn't care less. No wonder no one was willing to pay you even $10/hour; how diffcult can it be to make an ID on wiki? By British standards it's rocket science. Oops, I forgot - you don't even have a space program. 202.177.230.218 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
LOL... that's an interesting spin. So jobs come to India not because of financial circumstances, but because Indians are more intelligent and talented than people of other nations, right? Nice job! The Europeans of the 1800's used to think like that about themselves, and 60 million dead people later, we all can see how wonderfully that worked out! See? It's not taking much to get your real feelings out there. It's plain to see that your statements here have nothing to do with the content or title of this article, anyway. Don't you feel better now?
Oye Maa-Baap ne naam to diya hoga? $10 mai deta hoon apna naam type kar le kam se kam. Someone translate this for that oxymoron if you feel any sympathy. --Bobby Awasthi 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are employed and doing quite well, I would suggest you start spending more time on enjoying things in life. Becoming a faceless ...hole (from whichever part of body you feel like) you are not doing any good to yourself or others. As far as actual dialogue is concerned, well, I am sure Wikipedia is not into archiving more than 100 kB of text full of what you call vitriol. And by the way, we did not come to UK asking for $10 desk jobs. Your bosses came to India selling them to us insisting we could do them better than you. And trust me, we did not even go to UK seeking to learn English, Macaulay made the mistake of teaching English to Indians to instil the slave mentality. Unfortunately for you, Indians proved to be lot smarter than that. Now, your reaction is as simple as the story I studied in my English book in Kindergarten. What was it? Oh yeah! Grapes are Sour. --Bobby Awasthi 20:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby>>> Trust me, I'm not intending to spend much time here. I do have better things to do, but it's plain to see that you and your buddy there do not. I don't know your agenda, but all flaming aside, do you really think that your friend dropping insults like that does not justify a reaction from somebody? Do you really think he gives a rats-... (whatever part of body you feel like) about the goings-on in 1857, or do you suppose more likely he is here to start exactly this type of argument with any Anglophile who grabs his bait (which unfortunately, I did)? I believe that any disagreement between cultures can only be solved by honest conversation between members of the two cultures concerned, but this is not going to happen by looking for fights.
The British did do a lot of terrible things in India. I'm not one of these people who assumes that yes, the Indians just didn't realize what a favor was being done for them. I know about the tea planations. I know about the racist mentality (which existed EVERYWHERE at that time, not just Britain). But I think jews living in Europe back in the 1940's would not agree with you that the British were worse than the Nazis. And whether you like to admit it or not, some of the infrastructure they put in place IS helping your generation. What happened back then, happened. There is nothing that can be done about it now, and looking for fights and arguing over what to call "The 1857 event" will never change what actually occured. I believe it's pointless to judge a 19th century society by the standards of 2007. If you don't, then good luck with your crusade.
It is not about friends or enemies. It is all about ideologies and POVs. If it is not taking much to get the feelings out from one side, trust me, the edit history will speak up for itself, it is not taking much for the other side too. No matter how sophisticated you pretend to be, the language is not proper from your end too. He has given good references and citations in the past, has a face on Wikipedia, is not afraid to identify himself; and you are a non-entity, a faceless protester. (You may also be one of those already a party to the arguments on this page, but just pretending to be a new person). Under these circumstances, I would definitely prefer to have Jvalant as a friend than you. Besides this, the only connection I ever had or probably will have with the guy is this talk page and mine or his (if at all). The reason is simple, we dont trumpet but we are also busy at work. What Nazis did in 1940s was wrong, what British did in 200 years of occupation of subcontinent was wrong, what you are doing by arguing and instigating is also wrong; and by your own hypothesis, every wrong is to be treated equally. So I would ignore the only sensible fact that you have come up with, after so many arguments that the name will not change the events. (In any case, we keep arguing over the events also, and some like you try to roast their dinner every time the going gets hot.) --Bobby Awasthi 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Interesting spin? What interesting spin? Your Empire has gone for good, khattam-shudh. Your firms are being acquired by Indian firms. Your firms came here looking for Indian workers; no one asked them to come. We might just nationalize all their assets here when we feel like; but they willing to take the risk because of the uneducated work-force in UK. It's a fact that your nation has no independent foreign policy to speak of; it merely follows the US's lead. At least the French and Germans stand up for their beliefs. The Nazis built bridges in Poland which still stand today; that just not justify the concentration camps. Similarly, the little infrastructure you built in India to service your industrial revolution is no excuse for the genocide you committed. Jews may not agree that the Brits were worse than the Nazis; but far more Indians shall. Two cultures?? LOL, I did not realize the Brits had a culture in the first place. Jvalant 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Two cultures?? LOL, I did not realize the Brits had a culture in the first place." - LOL... you're so predictable! I love it! Keep it up there, big daddy. I love when I am debating something, and someone like you is on the opposing side. Because obviously in spite of what I have been telling you, you are too stupid to realize that statements like that are only serving to undermine any "legitimate" arguments that or your companion there might put forth, and further establish that both of you are here to do nothing other than cause trouble and spout hatred. I'm just guessing, but I can kinda read in your tone that if we kept talking, you'd eventually let something anti-semitic slip out, too. But I'm not gonna bother. I've made my point, and I've gotten my entertainment from you.
Yeah, I am faceless. And you do have a point that I'm being a bit of an ...hole, Bobby. But I didn't initiate that type of language, and I am not sticking around to perpetuate it. Inwardly I don't believe any person on earth is inherently any better or worse than any other person... my comments about India were more directed to pop your jingoistic balloon. I can honestly make these statements. Can either one of you seriously say the same?
Now I'm going back to the oblivion from which I came. You guys have been building your arguments about this article for I don't know how many hours. Then I show up, and in 15 minutes worth of banter I expose what at least one of you is really all about. I'd say it's a good 15 minutes of effort. So I'm off... may the two of you have the best of luck in rebuilding your platform that you are just two concerned citizens talking about history, and not just two people from one culture who hate people from another culture. Have a wonderful day!
I almost feel sorry for this poor nameless creature trying to make himself feel better about his has-been nation. I did not realize that stating facts amounted to spouting hate. Perhaps this poor "no-name" is too daft to understand the difference between such concepts. You "exposed" what I am all about? I am thankful the message finally got across. Right from day one I have stating that this article is entirely biased toward the British perspective thanks to imperialists and gunga-dins. I am glad at least one of you finally understands what I've been saying all along Jvalant 22:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand how this guy presumes that 15 minutes of banter requires hours of argument build up from others. Maybe, he considers everyone as mentally handicapped as himself. Now that the guy has decided to let us resume on actual work, just to lighten up, one last out of context thing, I remembered. Whenever there was such an issue, my friend used to tell the guy, "Its not your fault, please carry on, my apologies." And when the guy left, he would complete the sentence, "... its your father's fault. Had he made a little more effort the product would have come out right. --Bobby Awasthi 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Nepal

Jvalant, are you sure it it right to delete the reference to Nepal as you have just done? The Wikipedia entry for Nepal says "The Ranas were staunchly pro-British, and assisted the British during the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857 ..." which would suggest that they were involved in the rebellion. For you to say as a justification for the change that "(Nepal is a different country - removed irrelevant point)" cannot be entirely correct. True, Nepal is a different coutnry (and had retained autonomy even after the Anglo-Nepalese War (1815–16) but to say that their involvement in this event is "irrelevant" cannot be correct. If it is a fact (and it seems to be so) that they participated on the British side then it is right to include this information. They are part of the events of 1857 which is what this article is about. - Dave Smith 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, I believe that the reference ought to be restored. The paragraph in which it was placed referred to the Bengal Army as an institution, of which the Gurkha regiments were part, rather than India as a national entity. Gurkha troops played a vital part in the Siege of Delhi; indeed, without them, the British may have been forced to abandon the siege, with incalculable effects. HLGallon 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I have just tried to put things in right perspective. I dont know how relevant, but since it is felt that Nepalese Army contribution should be there, I have mentioned it. Personally, I feel it should be there in the retaliation section or wherever we are covering the British recovery; not where we are discussing the causes of that mutiny or rebellion or war.

--Bobby Awasthi 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are correct that mention of Gurkhas ought to be moved to the aftermath or recovery; but it must be emphasised that they were not part of the Nepalese Army; they were part of the East India Company's Bengal Army. (A Nepali contingent of c. 9000 did participate in the later Capture of Lucknow.) HLGallon 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

HLGallon I am not clear what we are debating? Is it the Gurkhas who came as a Nepali contingent at the time of retaliation or the ones who participated all the way with British. And as far as my limited knowledge goes, the Gurkha contingent was never a part of British controlled Indian contingents until the end of the rebellion. Have a look at [[17]]. It clearly says Gurkhas served as troops under contract to the East India Company in the Pindaree War of 1817, in Bharatpur in 1826 and the First and Second Anglo-Sikh Wars in 1846 and 1848. During the Indian Rebellion of 1857, Gurkhas fought on the British side, and became part of the British Indian Army on its formation. However, please let me know if you have any other information.

And I havent gone and looked into the edit history of the quoted statement from the cited page, so everyone should spare me from the Hindu nationalist bull... comment. Still I can see it coming from people motivated by far-left-wing-Christianity/Islam-style-terrorism. (Well, I am only trying to adapt word-by-word, the title quoted to me, far-right-wing-hindutva-style-nationalism; on a lighter note. I got stuck at deciding the appropriate replacement for Hindutva.) --Bobby Awasthi 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the Nepalis were part of the WOI on the British side, I don't see any hitch in mentioning them. However, to club them together with "punjabi irregulars" clubs them together with Indias. They are a different nation; just make sure you make that differentiation clear. Jvalant 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll give it a try. The Gurkhas were indeed "under contract", but were administered and equipped by the Bengal Army. Since they fought, I believe they deserve mention. HLGallon 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Your latest edits (HLGallon), make quite some sense. Gurkhas are mentioned but not as Indian Army constituents, which they became only after the rebellion was over. The issue is sorted for the time being. Now can we go back to the original question which even you agreed? The particular information (who participated on which side) should not exist in a section where we are discussing "Causes of rebellion". --Bobby Awasthi 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant and Bobby Awasthi

Please stop this. Your edits are apparently based on some long forgotten history textbooks you read at school, and possibly by watching movies or TV serials on 1857, possibly overlaid with a touch of far right wing hindutva style nationalism, but not on any actual knowledge of history. Please read wikipedia policies carefully, and then please stop editing this article. Neither of you has any capability to distinguish fact and fiction, discussion and vitriolic abuse. srs 14:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

srs, you cannot exploit other users work to persue your personal agenda in or out of wikipedia. Please concentrate on article and edit to what is the correct version, using simillar sources of citations and references as others have done. some long forgotten history textbooks you read at school are definitely worth basing our edits when working in history-related articles. I dont know what movies or TV series you are referring to. Let me know which channels in middle-east would air such series. I havent seen one in last 10 years though. As far as Wikipedia policies are considered, please read the section below. I am not going to tolerate personal comments on my capabilities [[18]] unless you inform me that you are related to Sonia Gandhi who may have slight potential to direct the cancellation of my Indian Passport. As far as far-right-hindutva-style-nationalism is concerned, without even knowing what it is, the way you are opposing it, I would like to call your agenda as close-left-christianity/islam-style-terrorism. (Choose which one of the two suits your taste better). --Bobby Awasthi 05:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the great Mr. Subramanium has been there, done that, in the past too [19]. And the funniest bit was his argument in response. (I can feel some lady-like voice, can you show me chiffon from Manchester, coz I dont like the ones from Surat or Jamnagar you see!) He was asking that editor to give responses from Kate & Malleson, coz those cited by the editor in support of his argument were Tapti Roy & Malleson's Rupa publication. (Both names sound Hindu, and so by default must have registered themselves as nationalists in his Outblazed brain.!) Bobby

srs

Read: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks with special reference to the following statement: But if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else – especially attacks directed specifically at users – detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here.

Also pay attention to the fact Wikipedia:No personal attacks also includes: Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

Please stop this. Your comments are based on... and possibly by..., possibly overlaid with... but not on actual understanding of Wikipedia motives. Please read Wikipedia policies carefully and please start contributing on original article rather than assuming the role of disciplining me. I am sure I dont need to speak on behalf of Jvalant or anyone else because I do not assume he or others are absolutely at the mercy of my intelligence like you just did. Let the readers decide what kind of a knowledge seeker would make comments like Neither of you has any capability to distinguish fact and fiction, discussion and vitriolic abuse I am delighted at your judging capabilities. Go and sit in one of those courts in your locality. This is a place which seeks humble contributors not governors. --Bobby Awasthi 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


srs

Dude, I am not sure you ever seen a textbook in your life. If you are so keen on licking imperialistic boots; that is your choice - don't use me as a means to please your imperialistic masters. Jvalant 18:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

So you are suggesting of this person that "I am not sure you ever seen a textbook in your life". Go look at the editor ... srs. I am constantly amazed at the level of vitriolic and intolerance on this talk page. - Dave Smith
Yea, I noticed that he is a glorified janitor in the cyberworld, who cleans mailboxes. So? I don't believe in turning the other cheek. If he wants to please his masters by insulting me, then I have no choice but to insult him. What goes around, comes around. Jvalant 18:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why there is this instant recourse to personal abuse? I don't understand this. It is out of keeping with everything I have experienced on Wikipedia before. - Dave Smith 21:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jvalant, I am sure you would agree that the original discussion was sorted between the three original parties (Me, you & HLGallon). He agreed to not considering the Nepalese contingent a part of Indians (after citations given), and I agreed that they were parties in the conflict alongside British (which I never disagreed anyways). You agreed that their mention is not out of place (though I think all parties to conflict are worth mentioning in a separate (or retaliation) section not in Causes section). The issue was closed. I can understand your anger because srs started persuing a personal / person-directed agenda just by assuming that he had a proven case in the last discussion (reference Nepal section just above). I think it is not an Indian tradition to resort to name-calling. We believe in letting the work speak. If he has resorted to what you think is wrong (I may also be thinking in same lines as you); you and me will still have to maintain our own status and dignity. I would request you not to retort with your anger, because you are only helping third parties to point a finger at you and justify his lost case. By the way, Dave Smith, apologies that this is different from your previous experiences, the page indeed has seen much worse than this. Just because it is a very very emotional topic on which both sides have extreme views. Unfortunately or fortunately, one side is doing everything to shed the intellectual shackles and the other is trying its best to maintain its turf. --Bobby Awasthi 05:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now let me put my feelings in nicer words to srs. The meaning may still be same, but possibly it will comply with Wikipedia standards noticed elsewhere. --Bobby Awasthi 05:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


Dave Smith, I am polite and civil to people who are polite and civil to me. I get personal with only those who I think deserve it. And I don't even understand how I was abusive. It is mentioned on his userpage that he makes a living cleaning mailboxes. That does make him a glorified janitor; not requiring much education. 202.177.230.218 14:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits by HLGallon

I am sure this editor deserves a loud thanks for doing a great job in the article so far. I have seen the edits word-by-word (to be honest I feel, any edit on this article automatically raises suspicions on either side of the arguments :) and I am sure we all would agree to the fine copy-editing of such a contentious literature.

Thanks once again, --Bobby Awasthi 06:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the Name should be the "First War of Indian Independence"

1. British were the Oppressors, akin to Nazis in Germany

Non-Indians may disagree with this, but if you have not studied the negative side of the British rule which we do study here, let me assure you that the comparison is quite close. The English Queen had problems apologising for the Jallianwaala Bagh Massacre (one of the single largest massacres of unarmed citizens) even in 1990s.

2. This was OUR WAR. So, WE DECIDE the name - Just like it was not the "American Mutiny" in 1775, it was the "War of American Independence" or "The American Revolutionary War".

3. We know it as the "First War of Indian Independence", so that is the name to be promoted, and the others should be discouraged.

Just like people in a country / city decide what should be their name.

4. If the outsiders know it by some other name, they should learn this one and identify it as such, not as a mutiny.

PS: All the above comparisons are completely justified. I don't know about people from other countries, but the British still do not tell their kids that they did things like Jallianwaala Bagh massacre in India. And they did plenty of similar acts of oppression on a smaller scale. And if you still believe in the "White Man's Burden", I can just smile at you.

-Abhishek, Delhi

Excellent point Abhishek. The Nazis infact were Buddhist monks compared to Brits. 5 million killed in 1943 alone thanks to the Brits in the Bengal famine. The rations given in British "relief camps" to the natives were less than those given to prisoners at Nazi concentration camps like Buchenwald. They conducted experiments on the poor souls to see how much could the natives work on the least amount of nutrition provided. We all know about Champaner. I too believe the name should be First War of Independence. I wonder what the process is to change the name. Perhaps someone can guide me. Jvalant 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


One would suggest you hurry over to (or create) "Indo-pedia" where you can give vent to your Indian nationalist world view (hurrah to free speech) without those other pesky English speakers offering dissent. 81.23.56.7 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
One would suggest you scurry over to (or create) "KuKluxKlan-pedia" or "Britopedia" where you can give vent to your imperialistic world views (hurrah to free speech) without those other pesky amd better English speakers offering dissent Jvalant 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

First, come back and sign in with your name please. Second, why should we bother about creating Indopedia.

  • India is a part of the larger world (this may seem slightly different from your understanding that the larger world is just a rotten extension of UK/USA).
  • There is Wikipedia, a collective effort by the world to develop free-information for all.
  • Wikipedia has a huge contingent of editors from India who did not know earlier that to edit on Wikipedia they should toe a certain line, or else they would be suggested to join Indopedia.
  • Get an official Wikipedia policy approved that Indian editors will have to toe Western lines or else they will be told to leave and see how fast this Wikipedia grows (or dries out).
  • If Indian side of the story is Indian-Nationalism, am I correct in assuming that your stand should be termed as an exact antonym, and hence called Western-Terrorism?

--Bobby Awasthi 06:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Such headless monsters push editors to start using unpleasant languages. How can we get rid of people editing this page without signing in?

Personally, I agree with Abhishek, and I would support this name of the article, if called for a vote, but I think putting the information in right perspective is our primary motive and the name alone will not change the mentalities. A lot of work is to be done still. --Bobby Awasthi 06:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

If it has already been agreed that the title of this article is the Indian Rebellion of 1857 then the Infobox should reflect this. - Dave Smith 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is also a question as to whether "freedom fighters" is an appropriate description at this point in history. It would seem logical to argue to a "freedom fighter" is the product of an organised campaign for "freedom". The struggles in Africa for independence (Zimbabwe and South Africa for instance) had armed wings which were the product organisations fighting for independence. Whether the Rebellion of 1857 could fall into that category could be debated. There seems to be no doubt that it could be seen as the start of the process of the independence struggle, but was the rebellion a struggle for independence? The article itself does not suggest that. In fact, it says that "The rebellion was, literally, started over a gun". The causes of the rebellion were reactions to things and not, as in the African examples I mentioned, part of a deliberate action of fighting for independence. Indeed, what emerged (and these aims may not have been the initial objectives) was not a struggle for "Indian" independence but, according to the article " ... Bahadur Shah Zafar was restored to the imperial throne there was a faction that wanted the Maratha rulers to be enthroned as well, and the Awadhis wanted to retain the powers that their Nawab used to have.". So the question is: is it historically correct to describe the rebelling Sepoy's as freedom fighters? Are we attributing them with values of the 20th century? Whilst, in view of the continuing discussion on this page, it would clearly be wrong to put in the Infobox the term "mutinous", as was the previous description, it is probably equally inaccurate to describe them as "freedom fighters". The best description would probably be "rebelling East India Company Sepoys" which would fit with the approach and terminology used throughout the article. - Dave Smith
They have been recognized as freedom fighters by the Govt. of India and memorial stamps have been issued in their honor as well. Whether a "freedom fighter" has to be part of an organized campaign is a moot point. Anyone fighting to throw a foreigner out of his land is a freedom fighter. I think it is wise to mention both the names in the infobox. Jvalant 04:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reference the statement: The article itself does not suggest that. In fact, it says that "The rebellion was, literally, started over a gun". The American revolution literally started over a tea cup. You may want to call both Boston Tea Party & Peggy Stewart Burning as incidents, common Americans think otherwise. [20]. May be authors in control of American history think with respect to values of the 20th century (read support required in Iraq and Afghanistan) Indians may not necessarily have any such pseudo-philosophical (read political) reasons. --Bobby Awasthi 08:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As a result of rebellion, Bahadur Shah Zafar died in Rangoon (far from Delhi), Laxmibai died in Kalpi (far from Jhansi), Tatya Tope died in Nepal (far from Bithoor), Azimulla Khan / Bakht Khan... and so on. And these were non combatant participants of the war/rebellion. Two most populous states till date PLUS 7 princerly states were on one side and some states PLUS the occupying power were on the other side. If the 7 states plus british territories opposing British rule do not represent India, then the same argument applies when it is suggested that a large number of states supported British (they also did not represent India). So what would you call it? Large number of states rebelling against British? And what we mean by British? A foreign occupying force? And what do we call a fight to throw a foreign occupying power out? In 1857, it was disorganized and scattered, it eventually evolved to a more sensible structured struggle afterwards. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi gave it his own innovative non-violent twist. Subhash Chandra Bose believed in recieving foreign support. ChandraShekhar Azad or Bhagat Singh had a different thing in their minds. Who are we to classify Gandhi as the father of nation and Bose as Tojo's Dog and Azad/Singh as Terrorists and Mangal Pandey as a mutinous soldier? I only see them all driven by their anger on being ruled by British. How can we say that freedom struggle started on a particular date? If so, what date? --Bobby Awasthi 08:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The question I was raising was at what point does a protest or rebellion become a freedom fight. I don't think you could describe the participants in the 'Boston Tea Party' as freedom fighters. It was doubtful that at that stage they saw it as a struggle for independence which is what subsequently developed. Historically it is possible to see events developing which, at the time, would not have been understood or even intended. - Dave Smith 10
57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree that the participants in Boston Tea Party did not see it at that stage as a struggle for independence which it subsequently developed into. Very unfortunate for them. They did not know what an important event they were seeding. Fortunately, Indian rebel soldiers did see it in that way. Indian government says that. And British government does not negate that (not so far with the ongoing celebrations this year). Then who am I or who are you to argue? After all, you have to respect the official custodians of that portion of history, the two governments; if not lowly intellectuals called Hindu Nationalists? Thanks for agreeing that historically such things happened which developed into Independence movement. Now lets leave it to official version that this was the first one of all. Otherwise, we will have some Sikh historians coming here some day asking the name to be given to the Anglo Sikh wars. (There have been arguments in Indian Parliament last month over this). We will have Kheri next [21] and oh yeah, we forgot [22]Vellore Mutiny--Bobby Awasthi 18:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


The Infobox now has the three names for the conflict used at the top of the article. The Freedom Fighters label has also been removed, as an infobox is not a place for opinions.81.23.56.7 01:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The third name is racist. Also, sign in. Jvalant 07:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I presume your racist reference is about the use of the description "mutiny". Wiktionary defines racism as "The belief that members of one race are superior to members of other races" and mutiny as "organized rebellion against a legally constituted authority". I am struggling to see the connection between the two. - Dave Smith 08:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The British East India Company was not a legally constituted authority; they had no legal right to rule over India. Jvalant 11:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you have missed the point. I understood you to have equated "mutiny" with "racism" and all I have done is to quote a definition of each word which does not make any such linkage. I also think there is a problem in denying the reality of history. If we take your position on the legality of the BEIC then the American Government cannot have a legal right to rule over America. What legal right did they have to take America from the Native Americans? In fact, on this basis you could question the legality of the British Government itself because England was invaded by the Normans in 1066 (and they presumably had no legal authority for their invasion and occupation) and so maybe the only legal authority in England would have been the previous Saxon authorities. Except that they had invaded England and pushed out the Celts. There can hardly be any part of the world that has not been subjected to immigrations, invasion, occupation, colonisation or whatever at some point in its history. How far back do you want to go? Israel goes back 2000 years. During the breakup of Yugoslavia some people were re-fighting a battle of 1340 or thereabouts. Trying to correct history to a point in time is always problematic. - Dave Smith 14:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
If mutiny is defined as Organized Rebellion, I am struggling to see how much contribution has been made from the other side to come to agreement with Indian POV of calling it a War of Independence? And still there is a small thorn somewhere in a corner of heart!!!!????
I think Rebellion is already there. Do I see correctly? If Mutiny means Rebellion why both words have to be there Dave? And I dont want to say anything about Deeptrivia who got one more lead to jump the guns in his eagerness to become an icon of Indian broadmindedness. Two in a month, not bad! Deeptrivia, you have forgotten to read Wikipedia revert rules. The first DO NOT rule is Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view. [23]. Unfortunately, I have to edit the changes which can only be left in place if you come and talk here and we all agree. --Bobby Awasthi 12:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
My contribution was not about mutiny v rebellion v War of Independence. I am not going to get embroiled in what seems to be an increasingly circular and repetitive debate. The point I was making was that the word mutiny is not a racist word but has a specific meaning. - Dave Smith 14:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I am no longer a "headless monster". I will try my best to make sure that this article does not get bogged down in POV. The best solution to this problem is to title both the page itself and the infobox "Indian Rebellion of 1857". Some Indians seem to find "Indian Mutiny" distasteful, whilst "War of Independence" is no better as a value free description of the conflict. The conflict was a localised rebellion, in India, in 1857. The facts indicate the present title is perfectly adequate. Lets try and keep it civil, try and be constructive and produce a worthwhile Encyclopaedia article. MrChile 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
There probably needs to be some additional information put in on the second combatant side. From reading the article it seems that the BEIC had some allies and these should also be referred to. - Dave Smith 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Yeah, definitely. I would suggest the word TRAITORS for them, since words like freedom fighters are most unwelcome on this article. Or we should call them the Queen's Butlers? Or maybe, on a second thought, you may be proposing to find a compromise by calling THEM Freedom Fighters? So much for rationality. Civilian biggies named profusely all over the article are denied identification in the infobox, but bootlicker non-entities are strongly represented. --Bobby Awasthi 19:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Really what I had in mind were facts. The article gives details of who the BIEC acquired as allies. - Dave Smith 20
48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
MrChile, First and foremost, welcome to Wikipedia. A COMMON platform that seeks CONSENSUS.

Secondly, Can you please give justifications for removing the word Freedom Fighters from the infobox? Also, since you have made the 1st combatant list blatantly British POV, can you please suggest where should we trash Nana Sahib, Azimullah Khan, Begum Hazrat Mahal, Tatya Tope, and others, all residents of Oudh, annexed by British East India Company an year before the wretched smake-charmers' mutiny took place? They can definitely not be called Princerly States, nor were they rebel Sepoys.

Third, can you please explain what you mean by "War of Independence" is no better as a value free description of the conflict when Indian government officially calls it so? You mean to say British Wikipedians are more informed and intelligent than the official custodians of that country? Or do you presume, it is simply the victor's POV forever?

Fourth, Can you please define the word localised in your statement The conflict was a localised rebellion, in India, in 1857? The locality, taking Gurdaspur at one end, and Barrackpore at the other, and taking Delhi at one end Nargund at the other, is BIGGER THAN THE CURRENT DAY UNITED KINGDOM.

Lets try and keep it civil, try and be constructive and produce a worthwhile Encyclopaedia article. Lets ALSO NOT THURST DOWN EVERYONE'S THROAT, what we presume is the only truth. --Bobby Awasthi 19:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Infobox

I don't think there is any such Wikipedia policy stating that the infoboxes have to be named exactly in line with article names. We are all aware that the name Indian Rebellion of 1857 was only a compromise solution to never-ending conflicts. If we look at the vague nature of contributions or arguments, it seems most editors here are only fighting to keep their personal POVs. Indian Rebellion roughly means Indian Mutiny which is the British POV. Why cant the infobox allow the other POV, i.e., Indian POV? But we are fighting over it for last one week, simply because like an arrogant feudal lord of yesteryears lashing his bonded labourer, some people just cannot have their nose elevation with respect to ground reduced by 10 to roughly 35 degrees instead of 45 maintained ever since the Empire was formed. Half the edits finding way into the article or being argued here get equal citations or references from both sides. Considering the number of years history was distorted by colonial rulers, the citations or references on captive side definitely deserve to be taken seriously. --Bobby Awasthi 20:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, I'm not trying to push an Imperialist POV; I'm not trying to make the title "The Indian Mutiny". Freedom Fighters is an emotive term with plenty of nationalist value inherent to it, let us allow the facts to speak for themselves rather than spoon feeding an interpretation to the reader, let the reader judge the difference between terrorist and freedom fighter, murderer and patriot.

.My question is where to trash those names I mentioned? What would you call civilians involved in a conflict which is called war of independence by their future generations and mutiny of soldiers by the other side? And there were hundreds of them. Before simply reverting, you have to first get full insight into the particular portion you are talking about.. (--Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

I did not in fact write the "Indian Princely States" bit in the infobox. The credit for that must go to your intractable friend Jvalant. As to your next point: Did not rebellious former East India Company Sepoys contribute rather heavily to this rebellion? If you have any other combatants to add, please do so.

.My question is not related to Indian Princely States, there were some rulers which sided the rebels or whatever you want to call them. My question is for those who were neither of the two. Why are you asking about other combatants again. My whole argument there was for THESE others involved, who were neither of the two groups..(--Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

The Indian government is full of educated, intelligent people. However they have their own aims, one of which is to maintain patriotic sentiment in what is a recently independent country full of a multitude of peoples. Terms such as "war of independence", though of dubious historical value help accomplish such goals. Government policy is also not always decisive in such circumstances if it goes against other entrenched opinions/names. I would not presume to describe British wikipedians as more intelligent than Indian politicians. That is not however the point. The point is that the term "Indian Mutiny" is (in various languages), the most popular term for the conflict in much of the world, and most of the native English speaking world (not that non native speakers are of any less importance).

.Recently independent country? Beg your pardon? 60 years is close to a generation gone... Still, when do you presume the time will come when the Indian governments will be able to speak correctly in India? By the way, out of curiosity, show me one instance where British public POV differed from government's? The argument doesnt sound very convincing. Who wrote the English language history books 150 years back? So what should be the most popular name for the event? Just because it existed as the only version? Meaning, we should still call black Americans by a certain name given to them 150 years back in world's language?.(--Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Localised is a relative term, with the vastness of the subcontinent that means localised could be an area larger than various European countries. I simply mean that the Uprising was confined to a geographical area significantly smaller than the total area of the Indian subcontinent.

.Consider the independent India as of today, what is the ratio of areas in that case?. (--Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

If I was attempting to make this page "The Indian Mutiny" then I'd be POV pushing. As it is there are people pushing for the dominance of a particular POV (the "War of Independence" point of view pushers). Instead I'm arguing that this current compromise title is the most sensible solution (with the alternative names given thier own place in the article).

.I think the word dominance is related to numbers. In that case, I am not too sure if you have used it correctly..(--Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC))

Also, Indian Rebellion does not correspond with Indian Mutiny. A rebellion is rather different from a mutiny. A rebellion indicates a more widespread uprising. Mutiny means something altogether different. This conflict is known as the Indian Mutiny in Britain, and the War of Independence in India. Therefore "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is a worthwhile compromise between the two viewpoints. As for your strangely phrased allusion to colonial bondage, I'd hate to think you were describing me as an arrogant colonial overlord, to do so would not be constructive or polite. I hope you did not mean to make such accusations MrChile 20:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The accusations or allegations (I prefer to call them statements) were on a style of activities and a stagnant mindset, I am too busy to concentrate on person particular. Sorry for editing between the lines, I thought it would save more kilobytes than copying. --Bobby Awasthi 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind if I described a similar stagnant mindset? The chip-on-the-shoulder, anti-western Hindutva leaning mindset.

Bobby, would you forgive me if I haven't picked up on some of the points you're making, your use of phrases is perhaps a little idiosyncratic at times (regional differences I guess) and that means I'll sometimes fail to grasp the meanings behind your points. I appreciate that such things may cut the other way as well.

I meant no offence when I described India as a recently independent country, as in relative terms it is. I'm from western Europe where many countries have been independent for hundreds of years so I'm just comparing India to older political entities where patriotism is rather more low key and less the preserve of national governments (for instance Trafalgar commemorations took place with a mock battle between 'Red' and 'Blue' factions rather than British and Franco-Spanish. history is more deeply entrenched within the national consciousness here and doesn't need to be imposed from above as it does in places like the US and India. The British government really doesn't try and enforce historical viewpoints or giv official names to conflicts, it's much more ad-hoc over here. Britain as a nation has so much history that we tend to get rather careless with it and take it for granted.

Comparing 'Indian Mutiny' with racial slurs isn't really appropriate. 'Indian Mutiny' is simply an entrenched name for the conflict, and nowadays it isn't simply used to promote the viewpoint that the conflict was a simple sepoy mutiny. Similarly the 'War of 1812' was not simply confined to that single year and the 'Hundred Years War' did not last for exactly 100 years. It is a common term across Europe, the white Commonwealth and the US, it is not a racially loaded term. Personally I'd categorise the conflict as an uprising rather than a simple mutiny (though equally not a fully fledged war for independence).

The word 'dominance' does not have to refer to a strictly numerical dominance.

Please feel free to add any relevant value-free information regarding the combatants in the Infobox. To do so can only improve the article. MrChile 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MrChile, your understanding of independence is different from mine. You may say America was independent in early 1900s, but I may want to call it a localized racial foreign origin government ruling over the original natives until decades later. You may want to say your Britain was independent forever while I may consider that it is still under the rule of a monarch so technically it is just a princely (or queenly, whatever suitable) state; where equality is defined as entire population singing God Save the Queen. Nationalism, independence and freedom wars are subjective words. They change their meanings in different contexts. Your statement that Britain as a nation has so much history that we tend to get rather careless with it and take it for granted albeit worth mocking considering the comparison; I would only remind you that India discovered the 2 zeroes which you are using between 2 and 7 this year. Reading from the highly debatable section of England / Prehistoric Britain where it is mentioned that Homo Erectus lived here 700,000 years ago, this is what British Wikipedians have to say, "The first written record of Britain and its inhabitants was by the Greek navigator Pytheas, who explored the coastal region of Britain around 325 BC." Compare this to what is there on the page on Vedas, "Radhakrishnan and Moore sum up the prevailing academic view by saying: "The Vedic Period is dimmed by obscurity, but it may be placed approximately between 2500 and 600 B.C." As used by these authors, the term "Vedic Period" includes the long period of gradual pre-literary cultural developments which eventually gave rise to written texts. Gavin Flood refers to the "more sober chronology" of 1500 to 1200 BC proposed by Max Müller for the earliest portions of the texts. In any case, I can realize the problem in coming to terms with certain facts that came into light a bit too late by which the famous statement had worked, "I was born intelligent, education ruined me." Would you like to call the burning of Joan of Arc an applaudable historical act of the army of an independent country? Just because the formative years of modern history literature happened to be in a tenure when there was a monopoly, history does not become a slave of that mindset. --Bobby Awasthi 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought the point of an Infobox is to summarise in simple fact form the information that is contained in the article. If the Infobox and the article are not consistent then it will not help the reader who is looking for some quick information and so defeat the object of an Infobox. - Dave Smith 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Dave, I completely agree. And that was the reason I never argued the input of Indian Rebellion of 1857 on the infobox, because I may like it or not, we all agreed to leave that as one name for the article and put the other view under it. Now just to highlight the level of conflict, we could have left both of them in the infobox also and borrowing from MrChile, "let the reader decide...". But since it is becoming increasingly stubborn, I thought it was worthwhile to fight on every single word beyond this, lest the whole article is slowly being taken for ransom. --Bobby Awasthi 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, I had not gotten involved in the name of the article or the heading on the Infobox. All I had suggested was that the list of combatants 2 could usefully be expanded because it did involve more the the BIEC. Your response to this was, just to remind you, "I would suggest the word TRAITORS for them, since words like freedom fighters are most unwelcome on this article. Or we should call them the Queen's Butlers? Or maybe, on a second thought, you may be proposing to find a compromise by calling THEM Freedom Fighters? So much for rationality. Personally, I think I was being a lot more rational than your reply and clearly I was not proposing to call them "freedom fighters' because under no stretch of the imagination would that be accurate. Now on the combatant 1 side, I think we could also make reference to the non-rebelling sepoys because the article makes reference to the fact the the rebellion spread to beyond those who were originally part of the BEIC Army. Maybe, too, we could also set out the names of the 7 states that support the uprising (if there is room). - Dave Smith 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through the article and tried to develop a list of participants on either side that could be put in combatant 1 and combatant 2. Combatant 1 could be listed as:
  • 10 regiments of cavalry and 45 of infantry of the Bengal Army of the East India Company
  • Contingents from the states of Awadh and Gwalior
  • Sepoys from Cawnpore
  • Sepoy garrison in Delhi
  • Sepoys in Kanpur and Lucknow
  • militant peasants, and other irregular fighters
  • Rulers of (the set out the 7 states)
The list for combatant 2 could be:
If this list is accurate and finds general acceptance we could use it as a starting point. It would seem to have the advantage of showing the scope of the uprising as well as the mixture of participants on both sides. - Dave Smith 04:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Where do we put the list of participating gentry from Oudh or the villagers who were hanged by Neil in retaliation, who were neither militants nor sepoys nor rulers? --Bobby Awasthi 08:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This was simply an attempt to develop a list of combatants on either side. Did the gentry from Oudh participate on one side or the other? If so, add them to the appropriate list. Obviously any details in the Infobox have to be fairly broad. You could not give details of every Regiment on either side. I don't see that the villagers you referred to could be called combatants. They were victims of the repression that followed. The details required in the Infox are quite specific in the sense that it is a list of combatants. - Dave Smith 10:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the alternative names from the infobox until this debate has concluded. This is so that one viewpoint does not prevail whilst teh debate is ongoing. MrChile 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
In which case, you need to remove all the names from the infobox until this debate is concluded. This is so that one viewpoint does not prevail whilst the debate is ongoing. And what excuse you had for removing the words Freedom Fighters? You have technically already breached Wikipedia 3 reverts rule by editing the same words thrice in last one day. --Bobby Awasthi 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Bobby, I've been a bit too busy for wikipedia lately, but I'd like to clarify that the three edits I made took place over a period longer than 24 hours. MrChile 18:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Answers.com

I'm sure there's a reason for this, but massive parts of this, if not the entirety of the article, are identical, and may constitute plagiarism to an article on the Sepoy Rebellion on Answers.com. This needs to be addressed. I have provided the link to the Answers.com article for comparison. http://www.answers.com/topic/indian-rebellion-of-1857-1

Actually, Answers.com and some other sites directly use Wikipedia content. If anybody's plagiarizing, its them (but they are not, if they are just following GFDL). Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

www.answers.com & www.reference.com simply mirror the contents of wikipedia. Since Wikipedia contents are already free to be copied under GFDL license, this is a non-issue. --Bobby Awasthi 08:33,


THE JAT RECORDS

Watching this discussion, I am going to point interested readers, to other perspectives from an Indian POV.

Being a bit of a history bluff, I could not help but reflect on my own evolution of a different perspective over the years. In school, I was taught this was a Mutiny by some 'native' infantry, caused because soldiers were being forced to use pork and beef fat laden cartridges, by some native infantry, which was eventually quelled.

One discovered though, that there was however another stream, that never seemed to go away, and this was, the historical accounts and historical literature in the Indian Languages- primarily Hindi.

These were accounts of the widespread uprising, in the land between the Ganga and the Yamuna areas, the area that today is known as the Union Territory of Delhi, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh – effectively an area within a circle with a radius of 200 miles from New Delhi.

This was an area, populated by a people who did not submit to the foreign Islamic rule, and fought it continuously since its advent into the Indian Subcontinent, and were never quite subdued.

They owned their land, governed themselves in their villages with elected councils, and which villages were part of a hierarchy of other elected councils, known as a Panchayat- ‘council of five’. At the apex, the region was governed by an elected council. They ran a government parallel to the Muslim Mughals Government at Delhi, and fought with that power continuously.

When they went to war against the British, it was not to bring Bahadur Jaffar Khan back to the Throne, but to throw off the British yoke.

They had their own resentments, one being that the British had put their ownership of the land, and their livelihood in jeopardy

The New East India English Company and its systems did not sit well with these freeholders/farmers.

TAXES

The British introduced a system for payment of tax in coin, not kind. They needed cash, and to obtain cash, forced them to sell their harvest to the class of traders and moneylenders to obtain cash to pay their taxes. These taxes were collected by much used of force.

JUDICIAL SYSTEM

The British Court system replaced the traditional system of Justice, the Panchayat system, where the council of five settled disputes and dispensed law, with their own Judicial system.

Under the British Court system a farmer could lose his land for non payment of taxes, and this could and did often happen even without his knowing what had happened.

This was done with in collusion between the British administrators, and corrupt native lawyers, traders and moneylenders,

Dr Rajendra Singh[1] writes

“These people were those, whose basic daily two meals, obtained after much hard work, were been snatched away by the British and their puppets; they were those who had no outlet for their grievances, and they were those, who lands were being auctioned off, by the British " Courts of Justice", in favour of the moneylenders. Even some of the British acknowledged that" they picked up arms, because they British burdened the Jats with more taxes, than those imposed on farmers of other communities" [H.M Elliot: Meerut Settlement Reports, P.18.]

SOLDIERS

Many soldiers were recruited from these people into English Company’s s army from the farming communities of the North. They were designated as being one of the ‘Martial races’. They were mostly however simple farmer boys who joined for a square meal and some adventure. Their communities had however long fought foreign rule, and maintained their Republican system of society.

In 1857 this system was still alive and well, and in North India particularly modern Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh was known as the ‘ Sarv Khap’, made up on individual ‘ Khaps’- units of 84 villages.

See:

www:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khap

These soldiers or Sepahi (Sepoys) as they were known fought against their own countrymen for the English. However at times even their tolerance for what they were doing, would not stand the injustices and they would rebel.

“These simple farmers and their families would, in the interest of their daily survival, in every step, ignore the insults of the British. Their tolerance would still give way sometimes.”[1]

There were plenty of mutinies or rebellions among these soldiers. Dr Singh writes [1]:

“In 1839, in the first Afghan war, dissatisfaction spread among the army, the majority of who were Jats, led by General Polk the British officers came to know of this, shot and executed two Subedar (sub officers) one Hindu and one Muslim, claiming them to be the leaders of the dissatisfaction... The soldiers held their peace at that time, but later on not receiving their pay, the dissatisfaction again arose. General Polk, in order to persuade the troops to cross the Indus River, paid them their back pay and special additional pay. The troops who followed later, took this additional pay as their basic right, and in 1844 the 34th native regiment and three other regiments refused to cross the Indus River without this additional pay. The 34th regiment was sent to Meerut, where the weapons were taken away from the soldiers and the regiment was disbanded. The dissatisfaction was being spread a few Jat and Gujar soldiers, who were educating their fellow soldiers, of how the British were establishing their new laws and dispossessing the farmers of their hereditary lands. [8].

In 1849, in Punjab, the occupying army revolted. In Wazirabad this mutiny was stamped out, but in 1850, in Gobindgarh the soldiers revolted and attacked their officers. General Napier was successful in quelling the mutiny. 95 soldiers were given various punishments, and the regiment was disbanded. The disbanded soldiers, before returning home were given their full back pay by General Napier. Governor Dalhousie was upset by this act of General Napier, and took him to task, upon which General Napier resigned from the Army.’

These rebellion/mutinies continued right through into 1857, when the soldiers in Meerut rebelled, and that sparked the conflagration of 1857, which is called a mutiny by some, a rebellion by other, and a war of independence by others.

The “Spark” was just a spark, and had been put down before.

What was different this time?

Thought should be given to what else was occurring, and why the entire region around Delhi- Western U.P, Haryana, arose to oppose the British with violence and arms.

Why would these people tilling their land,trying to survive,raise their families, arise as one, join in the war against the British, and give up their lives?

They can hardly be called mutineers!

They had no call of duty to the British, they were not in their employment or service, nor were they being paid by the British?

To suggest they arose to bring back an Islamic power- the Mughals, whom they had fought tooth and nail over the past centuries,is again not very convincing!

Nor can it be suggested with rationale, that they arose to protect the pension of some far off ruler of a petty princely state, or to suggest that they would give their lives to support some far off petty princeling, who was being disposessed from his/her principality(e.g Jhansi) by the British?

What did occur was there was a groundswell of opposition to the British, and as it rose to its crest, various groups came together for their own motives, united as one,the main objective being , first, to get rid of the British and secondly to settle their own affairs among themselves once the British were gone.

Of interest to History buffs, may be Bahadur Zaffar Khan's speech and letter, from the Sarv Khap archives:

From the book by Dilip Singh Ahlawat [2]

“ 4.4 THE SPEECH OF EMPEROR BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR TO 1000 MEMBERS OF THE HARYANA SARV KHAP.

On June 6, 1857 the Emperor gave a speech to the assembly of the Haryana Sarv Khap.

He said:

" Leaders of the Sarvkhap Panchayat!

Take your warriors and throw out the foreigners. You have brave and capable leaders. In my Shahi (royal) family we have young men, but they have never smelt the smoke of gunpowder.

The British army has many times seen the strength of force of your young men. Today it is a matter of polity that the leaders should be of a royal family.

Yet today the Nawabs and Rajas have fallen. They have accepted slavery to the British.

The nation had faith and trust in you. Come forward and throw out these foreigners.

On their removal a durbar (Court Assembly) shall be held, and the Panchayat shall rule and manage its own affairs. I have no objection"

From the records of the Haryana Sarv Khap as recorded by Mir Mustaq Mirasi.

4.5 BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR'S LETTER TO THE SARV KHAP.

Of Historical interest is this letter from Bahadur Shah to the Sarv Khap


"It is my request to the Pradhan of the Haryana Sarv Khap, and to each person who resides in this nation of Hind, that after taking back our nation from these foreigners, a Panchayat of capable and skilful leaders be called. The nation should be entrusted to them. A national panchayat for the entire country should be formed on the lines of the Sarv Khap Panchayat, through that the country should be governed. I shall give all my authority to that Panchayat with pleasure"

By order of Bahdurshah Zafar, Badshah of Hindustan, July 1, 1857 The Panchayat continued to gather its marital strength.” [2]


The brunt of the war was borne by these simple freeholders around Delhi. When the war was over, there was retribution- the British and their Indian allies (the soldiery provided by the feudal Jagirdars (Rajas) of Rajasthan, Punjab (Sikh states of Nabha, Patiala, and Jind) and Nepal (Gurkhas), carried out the British orders and destroyed their way of life.

Their story also needs to be included!!


For further reading see:


See:

[1]1857- Jats and the 1st war of Independence Dr Rajendra Singh

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4458


See also: for a lengthy analysis

[2]Extract from the book by Capt Dilip Singh Ahlawat “Jat Viron ka Ithihas” Acharya Press, Rohtak, India, 1988

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/ 1857war.doc Indian Independence war - 1857 or see

The 1857 War of Independence http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/message/8

Ravi Chaudhary Ravi Chaudhary 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Bold text

A fascinating contribution. No colonising force has ever had it easy and the British were no exception. What this contribution highlights is that history is a process and historical events do not happen in a vacuum. This certainly adds weight to the argument that the 1857 uprising was essentially a continuation of ongoing resistance. Similar chronicles of struggle and resistance can be found throughout history and as far as the ”British Empire” was concerned, there is plenty of evidence of opposition throughout Africa, the America's and New Zealand where the Māori's gave the British a very good run for their money. - Dave Smith 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
All the more reason to change it to First War of Indian Independence. Jvalant 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it has the potential for doing much more than that. I've just glanced again at the article and it seems to me we should start thinking about putting it into the broader perspective that is raised by this contribution. In fact, earlier on this Talk other examples were given to resistance before 1857 and maybe we could have a section putting this 1857 uprising in that perspective. There could be a brief paragraph and then a link to a new article which could cover all the whole question of resistance. This could be called (and I am being brave here because titles of articles seem to cause plenty heated discussion) something like Indian Resistance to Colonialism. Just food for thought. - Dave Smith 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally I like the idea of a new article entitled Indian resistance to Colonialism, although I have to agree with a number of other people in that despite Indian mationalists views that this should be called the First War of Indian Independence, it was no such thing. I have no intention of starting up another debate but if anyone is interested the new "Essential Histories" volume for the "Indian Mutiny" is exceptionally neutral and lays down some pretty solid arguments as to why it wasn't...granted the title of the book itself points to a British bias which I was not particularly impressed with but on the whole its an excellent read. Anyways, back to the matter at hand - as long as everyone is willing to get the sources together to expand the article "Indian resistance to colonialism" (rather than just have one tiny paragraph on previous resistance and then an exact copy of the 1857 rebellion) I think it would be well worth it. Good suggestion! [Pagren 25/05/2007]

I see that the Infobox that has been the subject of so much debate appears to have disappeared! - Dave Smith 23:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename to - The First War of Independence

I think this article should be Renamed to The First War of Independence. --Rsrikanth05 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha - no shit. Most people visiting this article seem to think so. Certain imperialists are dead against it. But don't worry, it shall eventually change as more and more people come in. Jvalant 15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You should take care of your language. This contributor is only 13 years old. - Dave Smith 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Though the title "Indian Rebellion" is much better than "Sepoy Mutiny" or "Indian Mutiny". I believe its in the continued interest of the ex-imperialistic countries to perpetuate the fad that the notion of modern Indian nationalism did not pre-date the British Raj and its the Raj that brought the concept of Nation state to the sub-continent. If the 1857 event were to be accepted as a War of Independence by the British, then it would automatically undo the positive legacy of the British Raj on the colonized uncivilized natives of the subcontinent.

Though, the War of Indian Independence did not have all the classic characteristics of a Independence War it sure had quite a bit of it.

For people who don't agree that it was an Independence War, I would like to say this. The British refer to the 1776 event of the American Revolutionary War as the American War of Independence. Why ? Is it because the American's won the war and became independent ? The outcome was a loosely federated 13 colonies and yet its called the American War of Independence.

While in this case, the war was lost and not only that, the loosing side was non-white. I am sorry, but the color difference stares at us. After all, history has been color filled for a long time and still continues, though in other more subtle forms.--Eshwar 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What is your explanation for the reversal of names over the Irish War of Independence/Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well then the so called Indian Mutiny should be renamed as Indo-British War or Anglo-Indian War of 1857.--Eshwar 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
I would say that by definition a War of Independence needss to finish with someone being independent of another. The 1776 business ended up with Americans (American colonists) having politicla independence from the original colonising power. GraemeLeggett 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Not really. Where'd you get that from? Jvalant 07:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


I'd say that without meaning to cause offence Rsrikanth05 is rather too young to have any reasonable place in a heated debate such as this. My position remains that the 'Indian War of Independence' is a gross distortion of historical events, as is teh term 'Indian Mutiny'. The current title is neutral, and doesn't reflect deluded Imperialist, or rabid Hindu-nationalist points of view. Quite right too. For anyone I've failed to respond to in the last few days I would like to apologise, my spare time has been curtailed of late. MrChile 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


Errm, actually just because the individual in question is 13 doesn't mean they are retarded or something. That fact that they are even here looking at the article and the discussion page shows they have every right to make a comment. It would seem however, that Jvalant's reply that everyone visiting the page seems to think the article should be renamed is completely over exagerated and I agree that the use of obscenity is wholley uncalled for. [Pagren 01/06/2007]

Sati?

Here it says that Indians were hurt because of abolishment of Sati and this maybe one of the causes of War of Independence. The source is the British Army!!! online mueseum. From what I understand the Brits were hesitant to ban Sati in the first place and it was only because of the likes of Raja Ram Mohan Roy. Considering it was banned in 1829 in the Bengal Presidency and as early as in 1798 in Calcutta, the - ahem - Sepoy response was rather late. Besides, this practice was not even practiced in a lot of parts which participated in the mutiny. The British Army - the perpetrators of the Amritsar Massacre can hardly be considered a neutral source. Until some scholastic source shows a link between Sati and the mutiny, that line will have to be shelved. Jvalant 17:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean in the same way that neither can a source written after indian independence on the cawnpore massacres be considered particularly neutral, stating how the british, in their starved and wounded state with over 200 women and children just decided on a whim to open fire on a superior force, the indians being made, oh most reluctantly, to kill the men to make sure they didn't hurt anyone else, and dropping in phrases like; a sepoy subhedar said "we won't kill an anarmed or bound prisoner - its not our way" - what a load of cow-pat. [Pagren 01/06/2007]

No, I mean that cowardice and deceit is in British blood, faggot. As you so well demonstrated by defacing my userpage. Trusting a British source is like trusting the Nazi propaganda machine. Jvalant 05:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Godwin's Law --Philip Baird Shearer 14:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
"cowardice and deceit is in British blood" ... now that is quite a good example of racism. Effectively saying that someone is a coward and deceitful solely on the basis of their racial origin or nationality. And "faggot" can hardly be described as anything other than personally insulting. Wikipedia does have standards of behaviour and I do think you are going well beyond what is acceptable. Why don't you trade personal insults by private e-mail if that is what you all want to do? - Dave Smith
Since, he did not sign in or leave his name, he could be a British citizen of Indian origin who has taken the movie Gunga-Din to heart. Jvalant 03:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That does not excuse the contribution you made or answer the point I made. - Dave Smith 11:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

I am too busy with a project and will be so for another month from now but I do read once in a while. I think the debate is going in right direction with position attitudes appearing on both sides of late. As far as the players are concerned they will never change.

Thanks guys, --Bobby Awasthi 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

srs you should have at least bothered to read the talk page above before opening your session again. It is already written on this page that Wikitionary defines mutiny as "organized [[rebellion]] against a legally constituted authority". Since you have voted on grounds that Rebellion does not have same meaning as mutiny, and now it is proved otherwise, can you please change your vote to Support? --Bobby Awasthi 07:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Indian Rebellion of 1857 → First War of Indian Independence — Proper title per WP:UE. Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

As nominator I support the move as I think that "rebellion" or "mutiny" is but a British pov which distorts Indian history. Jvalant 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose Biased and POV. srs 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Unfortunately I haven't had the time to participate in the debates of the last few days, but my opinion is that Rebellion is a neutral title and does not have the same meaning as the word 'mutiny'. MrChile 11:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support I know the mindsets cannot be changed. (The best example is voter above who has never discussed here or contributed on the article page but has already decided. The only contribution of this user ever has been editing article / infobox ENGLISH to comply with certain POV.) I know the vote will be lost, but I am still supporting what is correct as per my knowledge. Dave, what's your call? Especially after your recent comments of better understanding? --Bobby Awasthi 07:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - current title treads the middle (neutral) path. GraemeLeggett 08:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Contrary to the renaming proposal, "First War of Indian Independence" is a POV title. "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is neutral. Please go through the past discussions -- the current name was decided by a clear consensus from past discussions. utcursch | talk 10:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - this has been argued over exhaustively before, and you can find my comments on the subject above.Sikandarji 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose -Agree with Sikandarji, In a world where usage of the terms "Indian Mutiny" and "First war of Indian Independence" are (very) roughly the same, and where the use of both provokes such strong reactions from the other side, the only real choice is to use a second choice name. I don't realy have enough energy for another name change after last time anyway, - see previous discussion'stooto 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If I were writing a polemic I would certainly use Indian War of Independence. Eventually this is what may emerge - but not yet. The two options of 'WOI' vs 'Mutiny' are clearly not going to generate any consensus and that consensus already appears to have been reached with the current title. I think what is important (and would add more real value to the WOI perspective) would be the article I have been suggesting on Indian Resistance to Colonialism. Once 1857 is put into its context, not just as a major event, but a continuation of an ongoing struggle against foreign (British, French, Portuguese etc) then I think the ground work is being laid for a subsequent change of name. Those who support the WOI view have a particular responsibility in this regard in my view. We also have to remember this is an encyclopedia and the naming conventions mentioned above indicate that "Generally, article naming should prefer to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." - Dave Smith 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If the whole of India had rebelled and won, maybee we'd be calling it the war of independence. As it stands, only part of the East India Company Army rebelled (a military uprising is also known as a mutiny funnily enough)leading to a small percentage of the civilian population rebelling with them - the rest were either used as human shields by the rebels before attacking Cawnpore and Lucknow or abandoned their homes to avoid bloodshed. All things considering I think that the current title is as neutral as we are going to get and does nothing to put down events from an Indian perspective. The American WOI is still referred to as the revolution or rebellion, as with many countries and you don't see them complaining about it. I'm sorry, but this constant bickering over the terms Mutiny and Rebellion being offensive and racist is just getting really boring. To be quite honest those of you that wanted it should feel lucky that you managed to get the hindi name for the conflict into the first para of the article when really it belongs in the hindi language version of the website. Its time to draw the line as far as I am concerned; this is the ENGLISH wiki, not the hindi wiki and Mutiny is used far more frequently around the world than WOI, therefore the title STAYS as Indian Rebellion to satisfy all parties. If it doesn't satisfy you; TOUGH go and work on some of the other wiki sites that no one looks at but for the love of god stop wasting everyone's time by starting arguments on the discussion page and making changes when no one is looking, then hiding behind the race card everytime someone disagrees with you. ALSO - whoever keeps changing the title to INDIAN MUTINY and then deleting the discussion page DON'T. The agreed title to this article has been chosen. End of. [Pagren 01/06/2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.146 (talk • contribs)
    Why don't you wear your white gown, put on a mask and burn a few crosses? Or perhaps go lynch some minorities if you indeed think that Indians are making an issue out of it. Frequently around the world? England is the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvalant (talk • contribs)
    S/he never said that Indians are making an issue out of it. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. You're over-reacting. utcursch | talk 10:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    Jvalant, FYI I'm black...I think your comment on white gowns and cross burnings just goes to prove how racist you really are. And before you start calling me a slave of the whiteman (like you reckon you're ancestors were), why don't you just accept that your little CRUSDAE is not only wasting everyone's time...hence the comment on your homepage...but you're a racist, overreacting tit yourself who does nothing for multiculturalism.[Pagren 04/06/2007]
    If I were you, I too would be embarrassed about being a caucasian Brit. It's not your fault really. And you have had quite a few warnings on your page to stop defacing userpages. Now go burn a few crosses. Jvalant 16:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    The New Brunswick Human Rights Commission suggests that "Individual racism takes the form of individual attitudes, beliefs, values and behaviours. Racial prejudice, bigotry, belittling and jealousy are examples of racist attitudes. Examples of racist beliefs are racial stereotypes, the belief that some races are better than others and even the belief that people can be classified according to race in the first place." I wonder where you think the statement "I too would be embarrassed about being a caucasian Brit." fits into this description. - Dave Smith 04:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    Pagren, No personal attackes, please. utcursch | talk 04:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    Its all very well telling me and everyone else that - but when is someone going to do something about Jvalants racist and offensive remarks? Then again I suppose labelling all black and white british people and indian people living in britian as boot-licking nazis isn't personal is it? Just hugely generalised. I'd continue this argument but I have to go and burn some crosses...now where did I put that white hood? Maybee Jvalant has it... [Pagren]
  • Oppose. Rebellion implies no POV and accurately describes matters. I agree that "Mutiny" is to be deprecated (although it is emphatically not racially offensive). Had sepoys risen against a harsh commanding officer or oppressive terms of service, it might well be mutiny, but it is clear that their motives went far beyond a mere gripe at their conditions. However, "War of Independence" is also misleading, as it implies a pre-agreed and consistent political ideal which seems to have been lacking. While many sepoys sought the reinstatement of the Mughal Empire, as the embodiment of Indian government, there were too many other factions involved, from the selfless to the self-interested, to make any contemporary Independence movement effective (in my humble opinion only).HLGallon 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • OpposeI believe that the current title is accurate. The other titles (including Sepoy Mutiny) are acceptable as well. It has no implications of imperialistic legacies from the perspective of an educated Indian. Many nationalistic Indians do take pride in "Sepoy Mutiny" and several Brits I know refer to the event as "India's First War of Independence". As there is no compelling reason in my mind to change the title, my suggestion is to let it remain as it stands.Viggyjiggy 17:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I would draw the reader's attention to the following comment made by User:Jvalant above:
    "I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC))"
    Why has it ceased to be serviceable all of a sudden? I'm afraid this futile debate simply consumes energy that would be better spent on improving the content of the article. Sikandarji 10:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Mutiny might have a negative connotation, since it generally means a conspiracy against a legitimate authority -- it's British POV. "War" is Indian POV (and I say this as an Indian); there is plenty of controversy over whether the rebellion was a war of Indians united against British with an aim to gain Indian independence, or just a rebellion by a few classes. utcursch | talk 11:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • On a very personal note, with no intention to offend, I believe that taking offence to terms used (at the time) to describe events by reading these terms in today's context is a symbol of insecure mentality propagated by teachers and the educational boards of India in a feeble attempt at promoting nationalism by constructing an effigy of the Raj. Colonialism was a phenomenon prevalent in this part of the world in those times and was a social phenomenon more like slavery in the US than like Hitler's fascism. While both slavery and colonialism were in many ways regrettable, they are a part of our identities as members of the society. Not to forget, colonialism and slavery produced inspiring leaders and wonderful works of art amongst other things that are still celebrated today. I would suggest we accept at face value the terms that are recognized and commonly used as a description for the event. Let us avoid reading into the terms as derogatory since they ought not to be oppressive/imperialistic in today's context even though they were in 1857. Viggyjiggy 17:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


  • A Historical account, by its very nature, means that there will be different perspectives on the same event .

As I see it, an Encyclopedia, to be called an Encyclopedia, must contain all versions of the different perspectives.

In the last century, the British POV prevailed, and it was called the mutiny of 1857.

The Indian POV has been to call it a War of Independence.

A third POV exists, which calls it a rebellion.

Well the events of 1857 contain elements of all three.


There was a mutiny among the soldiers of the East India Company, in which the native Indian soldiers participated.

There was a rebellion, in which the Soldiers of the East India Company, and the civilians, and the feudal rulers of the Princely States participated.

There was a war of Independence, as these events were part of an ongoing resistance to foreign rule.

A simpler suggestion would be to include all three perspectives.

Ravi Chaudhary 20:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of vandalism in the edit history

Jvalant with reference to your use of Vandalism in the edit history, and reminding you that on 30 April 2007 I wrote

Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for good faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".

I would ask you to read them and reconsider if the use of the word vandalism is appropriate description for good faith edits by other editors that you persist in using in the edit history and used again today:

22:19, 2 June 2007 Jvalant (Undid revision 135328360 by Philip Baird Shearer " Reverting Vandalism)

--Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that your edits can't be construed as being done in good faith. And we already had a discussion about the use of Hindi in the opening line, stop vandalizing the opening paragraph over and over again. Jvalant 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I agree that we have had a "discussion about the use of Hindi in the opening line" (in the section #Aesthetics above) but I can not find any indication that it has been agreed to keep the Hindi in the introduction. If it thas please can you direct me to the section on this talk page where that has been agreed. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Seeing such a great opposition to one attempt (or misadventure) by Jvalant, all the custodians of history have collectively agreed that everything Indian on this article is a POV and biased and needs to be edited out. There has been tons of discussion on the hindi bit and finally it happened to stay there all the while. Then a great historian (oops, it was you only) shifted the combination in a way that the hindi words became orphaned. And then the same great historian came back with a volly of personalized Wikipedia arguments. Philip, can you show where we DISAGREED to keep it in past? Yes, no doubt there were arguments. And SAY YES, the words stayed after that. Or were you waiting for an oppurtunity? This is just disgustingly hyocritic. --Bobby Awasthi 17:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was not I who "shifted the combination in a way that the hindi words became orphaned" I shifted the ordering to "Indian Rebellion of 1857", "Indian Mutiny", First War of Indian Independence (Hindi:FWI). If the Hindi is to be included in the introduction then it should go at the end of the clause for #Aesthetics. -Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby: if you'd care to add other combatants and describe their roles in the infobox, without describing them as "freedom fighters" I'd be grateful. Perhaps if you were more quick to assume good faith and not go POV pushing you'd better serve the interests of this page. Philip Baird Shearer is simply trying to improve this article, you and your friend Jvalant seem to be the ones trying to force an unbalanced view of history on this page, I will leave it to other Wikipedians to draw their own conclusions regarding the identities of the hypocrites in this debate. Please take time to consider the aims of Wikipedia before indulging in paranoid, disjointed rants. With the right application of your energy I'm sure you could help improve this article. MrChile 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with freedom fighters? It's been agreed that First War of Indian Independence is a legitimate title. The people who fight for independence are known as freedom fighters. Jvalant 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter --Philip Baird Shearer 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"It's been agreed that First War of Indian Independence is a legitimate title ...". I think I must have missed something here. Didn't we have have some sort of survey on this issue which decided that the best title for this article was the current one? - Dave Smith 20:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooops. I meant, it's been agreed that the WoI is a legitimate POV. And people who fight in a WoI are known as freedom fighters. Jvalant 03:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
OK. But your own logic defeats you here. When the name is changed to WOI then using the term 'freedom fighters' might be more appropriate. But until then ... - Dave Smith 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
WoI is still a legitimate PoV used in the opening para and also in the infobox. What are you talking about?? Jvalant 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


Jvalant, I don't know how you can edit out the description Indian Mutiny and replace it with just Sepoy Mutiny. This introductory paragraph is trying to acknowledge all the different names by which this event is known. It is a fact that a lot of people in many parts of the world know it as the Indian Mutiny. If you want to put in Sepoy Mutiny as well as Indian Mutiny that would make some sense. I suspect many ordinary readers outside Indian might not be familiar with the word Sepoy. - Dave Smith 20:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If its a Sepoy mutiny, then it is localized, which was always the argument. If its Indian mutiny then it was pan-indian which was always refuted. However, if you make it Indian mutiny, you may also agree that it was pan-Indian and hence the argument that it was a war of independence!

I was not commenting on the description of this event but merely the name it is known as, which is what this first paragraph is about. I've made a small edit to the main article to which keep both Indian Mutiny and Sepoy Mutiny to reflect the point I was making. This should be acceptable all round. - Dave Smith 10:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because there was no mutiny in the first place. It was a war of independence. If it was pan-Indian by people from walks of life other than soldiers then the word "mutiny" is not applicable as it applies to people who are in the service of a government or a ship. However, if you think there was a mutiny then it was only a Sepoy Mutiny, not an Indian one because ALL Indians were never in the employ of the East India company. So you think we should discard the term mutiny completely?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit academic now as the amendments I made have now been changed. But you are jumping all over the place. This first paragraph wasn't discussing the nature of the 1857 event but simply giving some of the names by which it is commonly known for the benefit of readers looking for information about this subject. It is a simple fact that many readers will know it as the Indian Mutiny. That is not a comment on the semantics of what is a 'mutiny' or whether calling it an 'Indian' Mutiny implies some sort description of the scale of the event. As we can see from the continuous debate on this page, many people, particularly in the Indian sub-continent, call it the WoI. The point I was making about the word 'Sepoy' is that it is not a word that is in the commonly vocabulary of in much of the English speaking word. - Dave Smith 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox - Part II

I see the debate over the contents the Infobox is re-emerging. Why don't you have a look at the earlier discussion this page. I did have an attempt to draw up a list of participants and then leave it up to those who really know this subject to correct and modify it. Have another look, this might be a useful starting point ... - Dave Smith 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I notice that many editors of this article seem determined to just bounce backwards and forwards around the same few issues without attempting to address or resolve the issues in a different way. I have made two suggestions to try and resolve this continuous debate:
  • develop a separate article on Indian Resistance to Colonialism in order to put 1857 into a broader perspective, and
  • develop a more comprehensive list of participants on either side to put in the Infobox. I actually did some work to try and kick-start this.
Despite this, those who are the main architects of this article are just ignoring these suggestions. They are not producing any positive or negative comments and people seem just content to add and delete the same few words or phrases adnausium.
Without some fresh thinking or a serious attempt to find a way forward this article is going remain in a constant state of minor and often petty editing. - Dave Smith 03:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Stopping the edit war

I've removed both mutiny and WoI from the opening paragraph. I've also created a new article which is titled First War of Indian Independence. If anyone types in Indian Mutiny, Sepoy Rebellion etc. he/she will be re-directed here. If anyone types in WoI, he/she will be re-directed to the other page. Jvalant 20:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Aren't these the same artices except with a different title? - Dave Smith 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I can tell you already, it's going to be deleted as a POV fork. --RaiderAspect 01:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the POV fork. User:Jvalant had tried this once before without getting any consensus. --Ragib 05:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I also reverted it before you did, giving proper reason, but Jvalant reverted my edits without any edit summary.
I don't understand how will creation of a separate article with exactly the same content stop the edit war? Besides, copy-pasting content results in GFDL non-compliance. Wikipedia is not a Soapbox. Let's concentrate on improving the article, instead of fighting over the title of the article and indulging in frivolous and non-constructive edits. From the Requested move section, it's very obvious that the majority of the editors support the current title. Besides Dave's suggestions, I'd suggest that Causes for the rebellion be split to a new article. utcursch | talk 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Jvalant, please read Wikipedia:Content forking --Philip Baird Shearer 09:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, the very first line says that it is not set in stone. Jvalant 11:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
read further "Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and violate one of our most important policies". Agree or disagree? GraemeLeggett 12:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
In compliance with WP:RFC#Request comment on users have posted a warning on the talk page of Jvalant. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, I went to User Talk of Philip Biard Shearer and the number of comments placed on his talk page for his behaviour / biases against various topics of Afro-Asian background clearly highlighted who is rabid and to what extent! Interesting Read there:User_talk:Philip_Baird_Shearer

Freedom Fighters

The Govt. of India has declared the likes of Mangal Pandey and the Rani of Jhansi freedom fighters. Here are links of the Indian Postal Service issuing postage stamps, highlighting them as a freedom fighter.

http://www.geocities.com/dakshina_kan_pa/art31/women1.htm

http://www.indianpost.com/viewstamp.php/Alpha/R/RANI%20OF%20JHANSI

http://www.indianpost.com/viewstamp.php/Alpha/M/MANGAL%20PANDEY


Why hasn't the British Government or anyone else objected to calling them freedom fighters. They were participants in this WoI, Mutiny or whatever you wish to call it.

I request Philip Baird Shearer to stop pushing his imperialist POV, and I shall be following this up with a warning on his talk page. Jvalant 08:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Compare the relative quality of the articles for rebellion and freedom fighter and think which you would want a wikipedia reader to go to. GraemeLeggett 09:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Jvalant, please see Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter and stop edit warring over frivolous issues. The issue here is not whether Mangal Pandey was a freedom fighter or not, the issue is that nationalist POV is unnecessary inside the Infobox. "7 Indian princely states" includes Rani Lakshmibai and "Rebellious East India Company Sepoys" includes Mangal Pandey. Tommorrow, a 13-year old British teenager, whose ancestor died in 1857 revolt, might come and argue that the dead Company soldiers should be called "martyrs", just like the Indians are being called freedom fighters.
Wikipedia is not a Soapbox -- we would like to use neutral language here, devoid of Indian or British POV.
There is more to history than what you get to study in the Indian textbooks and patriotic movies. Try to go beyond these; you could probably start with the book Mangal Pandey: Brave Martyr or Accidental Hero? (review). I am not saying that I agree with what the writer says, but we must realize that what you and I think is our opinion and others might have a different opinion. Wikipedia is not a place to express a person's personal opinions.
Philip is not pushing his "imperialist POV" here -- he didn't add something like "the martyrs of the British East India Company" or "Mangal Pandey was a traitor/terrorist" to the article. He just removed your nationalist POV from the article. You're the only person who is constantly ignoring consensus here and indulging in childish edit wars. When your requested move was opposed (those who opposed included Indian editors as well), you created a POV fork instead of respecting the majority decision. You've failed to assume good faith and have been constantly attacking others' edits as "vandalism", "imperialist POV" and "racist". It would make sense if you actually work on improving the article content, instead of triggering unnecessary edit wars. utcursch | talk 10:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have indulged in your ritualistic imperialist boot-licking, you may want to know that I would have no problem with British referring to their dead as martyrs. I'll try explaining it as if I were speaking to a 6 year old; I can't make it simpler than this - Freedom Fighter is a valid POV, not just my POV. I have demonstrated it through postage stamps issued in names of certain individuals and you have highlighted it by referring to a certain book. The onus to prove they were NOT freedom fighters and hence should not be named such is on the likes of PBS and you. If you prove to me that indeed these were not Freedom Fighters, I shall of course stop altering the infobox. Until then, urge PBS to cease his parasitic sniveling and stop vandalizing the infobox over and over again. Jvalant 11:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I would like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and No personal attacks policy -- stop using terms like "imperialist", "boot-licking", "parasitic sniveling", "vandalism" and "racist" to describe others and their edits just because you don't agree with them.
Secondly, if you've actually bothered to read my comment above, you've probably noticed that I've provided sources to prove that not everybody believes that the rebels were all freedom fighters. I hope you'll take trouble to go through the book that says "Mangal Pandey was an ordinary sepoy who, in a state of intoxication, committed a foolhardy act for which he was hanged."[24]. Or you might want to read accounts of other Indians that sided with the British, such as Munshi Jeewan Lal (a part of the book Two Native Narratives of the Mutiny in Delhi), which claims that the rebels were plunderers and robbers. There are plenty of other such sources as well, including Indian ones (and no, I don't mean to say that I agree with all these authors).
Thirdly, you say you don't have any problem with British referring to the company soldiers as martyrs -- I'm afraid you don't understand the neutral point of view policy. It doesn't matter whether a POV is "valid POV" or "invalid POV", Indian POV or British POV -- if it's POV, it doesn't belong here. I'm not siding with anybody here -- I am opposed to British POV as well, and that's why I'm opposing the article on British East India Company being moved to Honourable East India Company (see Talk:Honourable East India Company#Title).
There are plenty of books and other sources that do not consider the rebellion as a war of independence. There's no problem with attributed sentences like "The rebels are considered as freedom fighters in India" -- there's problem with sentences like "Rebels were freedom fighters", and this is what you're trying to do with the Infobox. The Infobox clearly states all the Indian parties involved in the rebellion, and doesn't contain any imperialist POV. What you're trying to add to the article is POV. In your edit, you asked "why don't we just put Indians then" -- you know very well that not all Indians participated in the revolt, and a large number of soldiers in the Company army were Indians. What would you like to call the Indians (many of them belonging to the so-called "Martial Races") that sided with the British during the 1857 rebellion? Traitors? Or brave, loyal soldiers as British called them? The answer is a Wikipedia article won't call them either traitors or brave, loyal soldiers. Wikipedia article will just state the sequence of events and leave it upto the reader to decide what they should be called.
Your edits such as refusing to accept the outcome of Requested Move by forking the article and making personal attacks are clearly contentious. I take very strong exception to my comments being called "ritualistic imperialist boot-licking". If you don't stop with these kind of insults, I'm afraid I'll have to resort to formal dispute resolution. utcursch | talk 12:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Maulana Liyaqat Ali Allahabadi (at his trial in 1857 ) - [26] - Oh, eh! Jvalant made this one up! Maulvi (Islamic Priest) can be classified as a state? or a Sepoy? I am sure Sepoy is the word in English Literature, eh?

There was a Nehru (a la Gandhi) who kidnapped a well-deserved independence of India for his personal Nehru-Gandhi dynasty thanks to his love and loyalty for IMPORTED people and ideas. He died, but alas the dynasty and legacy continue, both in Indian National Congress and the on Wikipedia page on Indian Rebellion / War of Independence!

Bootlickers make me sick! And self-appointed judges make me puke! --Bobby Awasthi 12:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh and yeah, ref. I would like to remind you of WP:CIVIL and No personal attacks policy; I think it only applies to a certain Jvalant for name-calling, it definitely does not apply to a certain PBS who drags an article discussion to someone's personal Talk Page!. Or probably my Indian roots did not allow me to be hostile to a foreigner ruining my history? No, No. It is not my history, it is only a Hindu Nationalist perception, my history is limited to my political loyalties. So much for ideology! --Bobby Awasthi 13:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Where on earth did Sheridan launch a personal attack on Jvalant? What are our talk pages for if not for discussion of our editing? Awasthi, all of those examples you gave are covered under the (somewhat catch-all) "Indian Civilians". Your other complaint likewise seems odd to me given the intro specificly says that while the Rebellion was primarily in North Central India there were outbreaks across rest of India.
Utcursch, I more than welcome your decision to go into formal dispute resolution. It seems the only way this is going to be solved. --RaiderAspect 13:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite obvious that some form of outside arbitration is needed. Some parties on here seem more interested in writing a nationalist polemic than in safeguarding historical facts and neutrality. MrChile 13:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks people, no personal attacks. It doesn't help, just makes this article edge ever closer to WWIII status. --RaiderAspect 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: all of those examples you gave are covered under the (somewhat catch-all) "Indian Civilians". In that case, the entire East India Company or Honourable East India Company or Company Bahadur including its soldiers and commanders, should be called British Civilians, because technically and legally, they were only TRADERS. Come on, why such lopsided NPOV for others?
Re: Some parties on here seem more interested in writing a nationalist polemic than in safeguarding historical facts and neutrality. Believe me, I agree completely. The only difference is, being human, I see others the way they see me. Also, I can proudly claim that I have given about 3 dozen references and citations on this article and its talk page; and the effort of most British POV pushers and sock puppets is limited to TYPING on this page. No personal attacks from me until called for, thats my promise. I can understand. Even the Wikisource Encyclopedia Brittanica on the article page, is acutely misleading using nationalist jingoism like British soldiers, who composed the garrison of a fortification that could not have resisted a serious assault for a single hour, held out with the greatest gallantry in hope of reliefand Havelock's avenging army Some sentences highlight the rabid Racist mentality in sentences like The Nana, partly urged by his native cruelty,... So cruelty was a native Indian Trait. Bravo! I can understand. No doubt, 260 years is a sifficient time to brainwash an entire country and breed generations of loyal supporters.

--Bobby Awasthi 14:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

We really need arbitration.... --RaiderAspect 14:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I know the results already, I thought Utcursch said (and the Wikipedia policy asks) formal dispute resolution is the next step. Arbitration is normally the last resort. However, do invite me to argue, wherever...! Lol! Impatience and Kangaroo Courts... Seems like the history is repeating itself on the talk page too. --Bobby Awasthi 14:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby, you claim that you aren't going to resort to personal insults yet you imply that us poor white folk are all evil racist pigs and Indian NPOV believers are Uncle Toms. Apologies for being blunt but that is what you're trying to say, isn't it? If you see anything that betrays a POV then change it, but don't make changes to NPOV sections to justify your POV. It's that simple. MrChile 15:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Bobby, I once again take strong exception to being called a "bootlicker", this time by you. Just like you've an opinion about Gandhi and Nehru ("...who kidnapped a well-deserved independence of India for his personal Nehru-Gandhi dynasty"), there are others who have their own opinions.

Jvalant has been reminded of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter twice. The terms like "freedom fighter" and "terrorist" are not always appropriate. Would you call the rebels "terrorists" because they murdered several men, women and children at Bibighar during the Siege of Cawnpore?

You've provided several links that term the rebels as freedom fighters. I can provide you thousands of links that glorify what we Indians call "terrorists" as freedom fighters of Kashmir (including links from Pakistani Government's official sites).[27][28][29][30][31] Does this mean, we should label article on every terrorist attack in Kashmir as a struggle between freedom fighters and Indian military? The answer is we don't call them either freedom fighters or terrorists. We call them militants, write about what they have done, who classifies them as freedom fighters, who classifies them as terrorists and leave it to the reader to decide what they are.

Being an Indian, I believe that the 1857 rebels were freedom fighters, but that's my belief -- in short, an Indian's point-of-view. There's no place for nationalist POV in a Wikipedia article (either British or Indian). You're absolutely correct when you say that 1911 Britannica used nationalist jingoism. Such British POV is not allowed on Wikipedia, and at the same time, Indian POV is not either.

Personally, I believe it would be rather silly to file an RfC over whether "freedom fighters" should be included in the Infobox or not. But, it does make sense to adopt formal dispute resolution process, if you conitnue to label the British editors as sockpuppets/vandals/imperialists, and the Indian editors as bootlickers.

The issue here is two of you completely ignoring guidelines established by the Wikipedia community. When the requested move was rejected, Jvalant created a POV fork. Inspite of being reminded of Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter, you have indulged in revert wars.

If you believe that the current terms in the Infobox don't cover all the 1857 participants, please suggest alternative terms, or include the names of those who are not covered. The guidelines are very clear.

I'm starting a discussion below under the title "Infobox Combatants" for Infobox dispute. I request all editors (not just Jvalant and Bobby) to indulge in constructive discussion instead of edit wars. If you're not willing to indulge in constructive discussions, I'd suggest we go for a formal dispute resolution process. Please express your willingness for the same. Thanks. utcursch | talk 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi utcursch, I am being very honest with you. I dont give a damn to whatever we put on the article or infobox header. I never got upset when one side added British POV Sepoy Mutiny or when the other added Indian War of Independence. I was very sure that the name vote was a lost case from day one. That is not because I believe Jvalant was wrong in his conviction, it was only because I knew Wikipedia is not a source of authentic or verified information. It is only a collection of MAJORITY BELIEFS. Bhadani was one neutral editor/admin whom I recently asked for his opinion on a certain other article. And this seems to be the most appropriate place to quote his words in response: we are not making any encyclopedia as such but an encyclopedia by consensus and based on majority's choice. So, I feel helpless and foolish in intervening in this environment. I can safely make a statement that if at all you are genuinely neutral, one day soon you will be as frustrated as him or me when you will realize this fact.

I am being told by Wikipedia policy If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists. but instead here, the other side keeps digging the best evidence and raising its standards while the side that HAS DECIDED I repeat the side that has decided (not thinks) that they are right are just debating using simple english sentences, not facts.

Been a long time I saw someone like you who came up with arguments and reasoning. I am not shy to acknowledge someone's facts or effort but there are hardly any. I miss Sikandarji here even if I had my own reservations for his POV.

Again, just ignore your parts and I challenge you to find the number of facts presented by any of the great debaters here. Compare them to the ones I would have wasted my time on finding.

Then you go ahead and compare the number of edits of ONLY the infobox and first paragraph done by the same great contributors. And I also know that the garbage filled into Cawnpore section recently and other such vandalism comes from sock puppets not someone who just passed by. That shows the rabid mentality.

What sets me on fire is the fact that a mere majority is killing genuine arguments, citations and references also. I challenge you to go through the current talk page and find how many citations, references and validating arguments have been written here by all those currently involved in the debate. I can gaurantee you, rarely any. I did find your arguments logical and meaningful so I am talking here in a logical tone. OK I agree for a moment maybe the POV that I see as the right one is not really right. OK I also agree that the POV is being pushed by two people here BUT just sentences like IT IS SAID AND READ WORLD OVER LIKE THIS and IT HAS BEEN THIS WAY SINCE MY GREAT GREAT GRANDPA and IT WAS ALREADY DECIDED WHY YOU ARE SAYING ANYTHING ELSE NOW... are they enough to prove that my POV is biased and uncalled for? --213.42.21.83 18:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Combatants

User:Bobby Awasthi has raised the concern that the combatants sections doesn't cover all the Indian participants in the mutiny (such as Nana Sahib, Tatiya Tope, U Kiang Nongbah, 'Engineer' Mohammed Ali, Maulvi Ahmedullah, Kunwar Singh etal). He and User:Jvalant have suggested use of "Freedom Fighters" to cover these. Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter, it would be nice if we could find alternative terms to cover this.

I propose following solution:

  • Maulvi Ahmedullah was a talookdar in Faizabad, whose talook was confiscated by the British after the annexation of Awadh. He joined Begum Hazrat Mahal, who declared her teenage son as the ruler of Oudh. 'Engineer' Mohammed Ali also joined Begum Hazrat Mahal. Azimulla Khan was the dewan of Nana Sahib (who had been exiled to Awadh). Tantia Tope was also in service of Nana Sahib (later, he joined Rani Lakshmibai, after Nana Sahib escaped to Nepal). These can be probably included under a term like "deposed rulers of Oudh and Jhansi, Nana Sahib and allies", "deposed rulers and their allies" or or something better.
  • Kunwar Singh was not a sepoy, but he took charge of the rebel Sepoys, when they reached Jagdishpur. He can be mentioned in the commanders section.
  • As far as I know, kamat.com's claim of U Kiang Nongbah leading the tribesmen in "1857 Sepoy Mutiny" is wrong. Nongbah's struggle is not considered as a part of the 1857 rebellion. It was a separate Jaintia struggle that lasted from 1860 to 1863, and witnessed a fierce revolt during 1862. Here are some references: Official website of Meghalay Government, A Tribe in Transition: The Jaintias of Meghalaya by Hira Lal Deb Roy, Meghalaya by Barch, Hamlet

The solution is open to suggestions.

Also, I'd suggest that we split the article, as it's too long (longer than the recommended article size). To start with, we can trim the Causes section, by moving the content to a new article called Causes of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Other sections that have article of their own (such as Siege of Delhi, Siege of Cawnpore, Siege of Lucknow etc.) can be trimmed a bit. If other sections grow larger, they can moved to a new article. utcursch | talk 16:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be well worth creating a section on the causes of the conflict as it's the logical part of the article to trim. The infobox looks quite good at the moment with the addition of some other combatants.MrChile 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I am setting out again the list that I had drawn up earlier on this page as a possible starting point for the combatants on each side:
Combatant 1 could be listed as:
       * 10 regiments of cavalry and 45 of infantry of the Bengal Army of the East India Company
       * Contingents from the states of Awadh and Gwalior
       * Sepoys from Cawnpore
       * Sepoy garrison in Delhi
       * Sepoys in Kanpur and Lucknow
       * militant peasants, and other irregular fighters
       * Rulers of (the set out the 7 states)
The list for combatant 2 could be:
       * Remnants of the Army of the East India Company
       * Regiments of the British Army
       * Punjab Irregular Force
       * Sikhs and Pathans of the Punjab and North-West Frontier Province
       * Gurkhas from Nepal
- Dave Smith 17:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dave Smith's list looks good to me, but there are some missing elements. For instance, according to this image (sourced from University of Pennsylvania), the seven princely states don't include some of the states annexed by the British (i.e. Jhansi etal). So, forces of Rani Lakshmibai/Nana Sahib should be included as well. Also, the Sepoys from regions other than those mentioned above also rebelled. For eg., the Sepoys in Bhopal area revolted, but the rebellion was suppressed by the Begum of Bhopal). Also, the above-mentioned image states that there were 20 princely states, which aided the British. It shows area under states that were loyal to the British, but doesn't list their names (for eg. Bhopal, where the Begum suppressed the rebellion). I guess with some additions, we can finalize on this one. Hopefully, Jvalant and Bobby will contribute constructively to the discussion and suggest some improvements. utcursch | talk 18:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I am being very open about it. I have given some names who are not represented. For the deposed rulers maybe I agree with Utkarsh they can be called so. But what do you want to call those who became heroes during the mutiny after appearing from nowhere. The Indian government calls them Freedom Fighters.As far as British government is concerned, they never objected to this naming by Indian government. I dont see any reason for all these editors objecting to the word unless it is a nationalist's POV. I dont know which other name can be given to them. I leave the floor open to the other side to suggest words. And oh yeah! I think I can avoid answering those who just come up with I think... contributions on Wikipedia. --Bobby Awasthi 18:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Should I put it this way, "I think... I won". HUH. ANYONE ELSE...? --Bobby Awasthi 19:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In line with the guidelines, if the phrase "freedom fighter" is to be used then it should be in the form like this: "and those the Indian government calls freedom fighters".[ref] Personally I do not think that this is appropriate to put such statements in an info-box as it makes info-boxes bloated, but if placed in the text of the article that way I have no objections. I do however object to the phrase freedom fighter being used in the passive narrative voice of the article (just as I would if anyone who was described as terrorist in the passive narrative voice of the article). --Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Take a look at American Revolutionary War. In there, the term "American Patriots" is used in the combatants. I would be fine with using "Indian Patriots" instead of Freedom Fighters. Whether of not they had an idea of "India" as single entity is a moot point. But considering the fact that the 13 states eventually became 50 states; you would think that it would be fair to term them "Indian Patriots" as well. You will also notice that it is not referred to as an "American Mutiny". Ah, it is not a historical term, is it?
Utcursh, I wonder how many Kashmiris have you actually spoken to? I've had the privilege of knowing quite a few from Srinagar itself. If you take their opinion (and considering it is their territory, you would think that it is logical), many are rabidly anti-Indian Army. While they do hate the likes of Lashkar and Hizbul as much as Indians do, people like Maqbool Butt are considered freedom fighters by them. On the other hand, the rest of the Indians do consider him to be a terrorist. Veer Savarkar is another example as is Nelson Mandela. My point is that you cannot shy away from calling them "freedom fighters" just because you think it is the politically correct thing to do or that it subscribes to NPOV. Subscribing to a NPOV would be acknowledging both sides. All I see on this page is ridiculous British POV pushing over and over again. Jvalant 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The reference to Kashmiri Freedom Fighters or terrorists is irrelevant. The valley has religious fanatics wanting to create an utopia for a certain faith in lines with the already created Pakistan which has already failed miserably in achieving that utopia itself. Muslims fight with muslims in 'the land of pure'. Based on this, Pakistan may better be kept out to begin with. As far as calling them freedom fighters is concerned, I would have agreed if they represented the entire society of Kashmir. They cannot claim to be fighting a war of independence after driving the entire Kashmiri Pandit population out of the valley. Those were also rightful citizens of the country for which they were fighting, however small their percentage. I will be more than glad to call them freedom fighters if they were working for organizations which did not have words like Jehad and Jamaat in their names. You cannot justify a twin target of a freedom war and holy war in one go. By the way some of these have already been called International terrorists by FBI/Scotland Yard and the likes after 9/11. I dont think Indian politics or POV influenced that decision.--Bobby Awasthi 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"By the way some of these have already been called International terrorists by FBI/Scotland Yard and the likes after 9/11." Hmmm ... so we can quote imperialist sources sometimes then? :-) - Dave Smith 00:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

If you would have really bothered to check the list of references and citations I have used all this while, you would not have wasted your time to make such a shallow comment. --Bobby 08:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You should smile occasionally. I did. :-) - Dave Smith 15:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

After having a look at the current infobox, it seems getting bloated unnecessarily. Nana Sahib & allies is not the right phrase in that box because some others from far away areas would have probably not even known his name. All we need to do is to agree if Indian Patriots or something like that is OK with everyone to be used collectively for all such people (like the Bhopal episode mentioned above by Utkarsh). I still feel something is missing in the words. Keep them in accordance with NPOV but at least give them enough gravity to suit the roles played by this group. Also surprisingly, why is British Army not considered on combatant 2 side? I think the rebellion was eventually suppressed by British Army regulars not company forces. My great I think...I am supreme friend removed it from combatant 2 box recently without any discussion here AS USUAL. --Bobby Awasthi 07:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this point about the British Army is historically correct. It was in the list that I had tried to develop. - Dave Smith 00:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we need to put it back in place. Please explain to Mr. I Think... (Dont know, but think) first. ----Bobby 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I dont think there is any point in discussing here. While we discuss, MrChile has already decided. The actions of MrChile and his apparent sock puppets collectively, on the Infobox can be safely called as VIOLATION OF Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. In fact, if we notice the number of edits in past one month done by MrChile and company; he has already violated Wikipedia:Thirty(or maybe sixty)-reverts rule, if there was any. (that is his total contribution here anyways and you dont need to scroll, it is all limited to first paragraph of the article and infobox.) Every time there is some direction in the discussion and anything is added by Jvalant in the infobox, this (ab)user, goes ahead and keeps reverting it until we start finding substitutions. The moment the substitutions appear, he is doing the same to them again. He cleverly places someone else to do the third edit every time. That can be safely called as the role of a sock puppet. Utkarsh can you guide us on this? --Bobby Awasthi 08:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The infobox should be kept as simple as possible, it would be better to link out to a section a fruther down where the participants can be more comprehensively set out. Are you accusing anyone in particular of being a sockpuppet?GraemeLeggett 08:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I said the same, it seems a bit bloated and should link, but first find the right and agreeable words to represent the groups. I am not accusing anyone, I just want others to notice the fly-by editors which appear doing the same job as Mr Chile once he has reached the limit of violating WP:3RR and then dissappear again. Also, the group as a whole keps doing the same reverts over and over again which is not what is prescribed on Wikipedia. --Bobby 09:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I will try not to respond to you with personal insults. If you try and insult me, or throw baseless accusations at me again then I will take some actions against you (arbitration, etc). I have not removed or changed anything that should not have been altered or removed. I have not used other usernames or IP addresses to edit this article, and I have not breached the 3 revert rule or any other similar rule. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from insulting me, and those other editors who have tried to maintain the neutrality of the infobox and the article at large. MrChile 10:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: I will take some actions against you (arbitration, etc), YOU cannot take action. You can only request. Get out of the emperor mindset first. In any case, my response is, MOST WELCOME... AND BEST OF LUCK. I made statements, not accusations. I did not ask for clarifications. Seems like I touched a raw nerve. Apologies. --Bobby Awasthi 12:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
If I request arbitration against you I will be taking action against you. "Emperor mindset"? Are you trying to be racist? IS this another 'British Imperial pig-dog' insult? Your User page indicates that you like to be neutral, refrain from personal attacks and have a near native command of the English language. Are you really sure that those infoboxes apply to you? I didn't register on Wikipedia to be insulted and I strongly suggest that you refrain from chucking unfounded allegations and insults around. MrChile 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

My sentences are never personal unless there are queries or accusations pointed at me personally. That is my definition of neutrality and refrain from personal attack. Also, refrain from personal attacks applies to those too, who try to attack a user with such an infobox. May be it is difficult for you to understand that since your command of English is one level above mine. My command over English may better be left to be judged by professionals. You tried your best, but I dont think your attempt to instigate other West-based editors worked here. I do not insult, As far as userboxes on my page are concerned, IT IS MY USERPAGE and I am the one to decide what I am like... If you had one user page you would know what I am talking about. All the best for your future attempts. --213.42.21.84 08:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I assume yopu forgot to log in Bobby. I think it is best that you refrain from making stupid allegations about me.MrChile 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed "Indian Patriots", as it implies that all the other Indians listed in the info-box were not motivated by patriotism. I have no idea if at that time there was such a thing as pan Indian national patriotism any more than there is pan European national patriotism today. Are there any reliable source that say that such a thing existed in 1857, because at the time of independence a sizable minority of Indians were not in favour of the transfer of territory to one pan Indian state. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Philip, your statementa are self-contradicting to my understanding. I removed "Indian Patriots", as it implies that all the other Indians listed in the info-box were not motivated by patriotism If ALL were motivated by Patriotism and all were Indian Patriots, then this is definitely a War of Independence and they should rightly be called Freedom Fighters. --Bobby Awasthi 12:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've failed to understand Philip's point.MrChile 13:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, OK, I'm not going to revert any edits over the Infobox issue, and I request others not to do so. Let's comment on the content, not contributors. Since there is obviously a difference of opinion here, how about seeking informal mediation? utcursch | talk 13:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I would welcome mediation. I suggest that 'Indian Patriots' should be removed until we get the results of mediation. MrChile 13:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
No. It stays till decided otherwise. Jvalant 07:29, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

As a part of arguments, the words may be justified. Otherwise, I dont think I need to respond to I THINKs. They are out of purview of Wikipedia editing. Certain users seem to hold copyright to those words though.

If we agree that, as a policy, we will remove all disputed words until resolved, I think it is not only the words input by a certain Jvalant or Bobby, the other side also should have a right to list and remove all such words which we allege to be British POV until resolved. I think we will have half the article gone this way. If one side accepts a set of disagreeable words for the time being and discusses it here trying to resolve, why the other is so rigid? ----Bobby 08:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Shall we just have a vote on whether 'Indian patriots' should be included in the infobox? It's the only way to resolve this. MrChile 23:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes - Summary style

I think the word tolerated though literally correct, is a potential ignition point of future in the sentence... In the early years of the Company rule, the British tolerated and even encouraged the caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army,. May I suggested accepted instead? Bobby -- 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

"Accepted" looks fine to me. utcursch | talk 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian patriots?

What does everyone think about the removal of this historically suspect phrase? I'm considering removing it. MrChile 14:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please give your arguments in support of your proposal. Please respond to my previous arguments on exactly this subject in this very page above and suggest the requested alternatives. More importantly, you have ignored to participate in the debate on this very topic when it was going on right in your presence. Earlier abstainment from the debate on this topic, followed by the use of adjective historically suspect phrase for words Indian Patriots is tantamount to a racially biased disrespect towards the list of men identified under the header. --Bobby Awasthi 18:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Patriots is not a neutral enough name and yes, I'd apply that to the American revolutionary 'patriots' as well. this is a straight up consensus gathering exercise determined to eliminate the problem of edit wars by canvassing the various editors who are concerned with the direction of this article. The other debates had become bogged down in irrelevant details by the time I saw them, but if you'd care to look I have tried to direct the last debate back onto this subject. I'll take this petty insult/accusation of racism on the chin and not respond in kind, but my patience is growing rather thin. MrChile 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then first go change "patriots" on the American War of Independence page. Jvalant 16:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

That wouldn't be easy, Americans love to mythologise their past. MrChile 23:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


LOL, and I guess the Brits are fair and square; still carrying the white man's burden I see. :) Jvalant 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


In any case my queries and issues relevant to only this topic in the page above have not even been read, forget being responded. Still, what shocked me was the audacious and unabashed response to Jvalant's suggestion of proving the point by drawing parellels. Any T, D or H with personal convictions and perceptions considers it his birthright to paint his own version of a picture on Indian sandbox without even arguing the case, but in case of American history he has to be sensitive towards native emotions. Other editors please help me find better words, since the use of word racism is considered as an accusation despite brazen acceptance of difference in criteria for two different races/countries. By the way, we have canvassing going on here, I did not know that historical facts are finalized now-a-days in the same fashion as we elect our politicos. --Bobby Awasthi 03:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

To balace the pov in the info box should we add "British patriots" to the other side of the combatants box in font of the "East India Company"? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I dont know about others, but I would support this argument even if it is knowingly wrong. I was always the one asking to include British army to combatant 2. I consider you to be equally patriotic and thus, a representative. If by siding with East India Company's private interests, and what would be classified as war-crimes in the most generous terms by contemporary standards, British Patriots want to bring down their own standards; why should non-British interfere. However, think about an argument. What were British Patriots trying to achieve fighting with Indians IN INDIA? Believe me I am smiling :) --Bobby Awasthi 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
By all means, add "British patriots"; after all the British were being patriots in subjugating a nation which wasn't theirs. Infact, I love the idea. I shall put it in there myself. Jvalant 08:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Two POVs are not equal to NPOV. utcursch | talk 09:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I just find it difficult to accept why some people wish to insert blantant falsehoods into historical articles. 'Indian patriots' is a contrived and misleading term, as would putting something like 'British loyalists' to balance it out.MrChile 13:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it contrived and misleading? We Indians think that trying to kick out the Brits from our nation was a pretty patriotic thing to do. Don't you think they deserved to be kicked out then? Did we really have to wait til 1947 to kick them out? Jvalant 22:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the question is not whether "you Indians" think anything at all NOW. The question is were the rebels (for want of a better term) considered patriotic in 1857, or is this a retrospective motivation?--Jackyd101 06:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

'Indian patriots' requires those involved to have belived they were 'Indian' not just fighting for their own state. I can't find any evidence of that. Unless others can it should be removed.Rsloch 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Title of the article

May I ask why the article is being tagged with {{Pov-title}}[32][33] when most of the editors who commented on #Requested Move find the current title acceptable? The article should not be tagged as POV-title just because a few editors who supported the failed requested move don't like it. It has been explained in detail during the past discussions as well as the current Request Move that the title "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is neutral (unlike "Indian Mutiny" or "First War of Indian Independence").

I think I've made enough efforts to start a constructive discussion, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It's better to go for informal dispute resolution. What would the editors concerned prefer, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Request for Comment? utcursch | talk 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

utcursch, I agree that the title topic is over and ideally the tag should be out. However, the statement on this tag is not limited to subject, it covers body of the article too. And there are lots of grey areas all over, weasel words / peacock terms are still present occassionally. There are situations where the facts quoted from both continents make one paragraph poles apart from the other within the same section. I suggest we use {{unbalanced}} or {{disputed}} which are a lot more mild. The title is definitely disputed from both Indian and British POVs but since a compromise has been reached, its high time we go further without going around the same circle over and over. However, I am ready for either as desired by others. --Bobby 10:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for constructive remarks, Bobby. I agree the article is messed up and needs a lot of cleanup. Jvalant, are you OK with replacing {{POV-title}} with {{POV-check}}? I don't want to indulge in any revert wars, as they create a hostile environment. I hope everybody will agree that the current title is a good compromise. No title will ever be considered 100% perfect, but the current title is not as imperialistic as "Indian Mutiny" and not too nationalist (like "First War of Indian Independence"). utcursch | talk 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's fine Jvalant 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
At the same time, no one should let lose the I think... variety of editors, to start editing (read deleting) wherever they find historical facts of transgression, and masquerade camouflage attempts as NPOV issues. I suggest we strictly follow a rule that any change on article has to be discussed and agreed first here on talk page. --Bobby Awasthi 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)