Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 4

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 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 →

Contents 1 HO HO HO HO HO! 1.1 Statement by srs 2 Bengal army 3 Results 4 Results 5 requested edit 6 I hate to say this 7 Bangladesh & Pakistan 8 Whats going on in the opening paragraph? 9 How Common the the phrase 10 NPOV Infobox? A BIG Joke! 11 Use of word ARSON 12 User:DemolitionMan unblocked, 3-month topic ban 13 Dying to be home 14 God Save NPOQ! Infobox - Location 15 Debate over name (again) 16 Can someone answer these?

HO HO HO HO HO!

And welcome back! I am referring to the reporting on RFAR.

Statement by srs

Earlier (wrongly) placed on Arbitration Enforcement, I am still something of a newbie to Wikipedia AUP enforcement. Re-pasted this request below.

Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.

Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.

Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm

nb: One of the parties in this request has just been banned for a week - User_talk:DemolitionMan#Blocked_2 - for persistent violation of WP:3RR and history of disruptive editing, including confirmed (checkuser) puppeteering.

srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suresh Ramasubramanian, to what extent can you fall for your personal ambitions/disagreements of views? You are the solely responsible deletor (I dont call you an editor for obvious reasons) on this forum for making me absolutely disinterested in doing anything here at all except showing you the light of day. You have downgraded me to your standards on Wikipedia.

You are talking about WP:3RR and any idiot on seeing the edit history will note that you and your co-warrior have violated (as a pair) more than WP:5RR (if I may name it so and if it existed) on the same date when you reported [User:DemolitionMan| Jvalant]. You chose not to protect your sole torch bearer and favourite cited author, Malleson, last week when your co-warrior deleted the statements but you had time to report on RFAR for tendentious editing by (sic) Hindu Nationalists. You smack of typical convent educated double standards and smell of a typical english speaking Indian slave mentality. And by the way, reference your standard allegation of Hindu Nationalist POV, I have decided to henceforth give your POV a name, Christian Slave POV. I dont have any proofs of this being so, as much as you have none. --Bobby Awasthi 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Bengal army

The article says. "the most exclusive Bengal Army had 12,000 British, 16,000 Punjabi and 1,500 Gurkha soldiers" surley there werer 86,000 native troops in the Bengal army not 17,500. Should this not be alterd. or is this badly worded and mens something other then it seems to be sayiing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Results

As there was significant (and indead a total) change in the political structure of India post mutiny I question the pharse

'status quo ante bellum' 

As the result, this is clearly not the case. Not only did company rule end (and direct British govenemtn rule being) but a number of native rulers were reoved from even their token positions. [[Slatersteven 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Results

As there was significant (and indead a total) change in the political structure of India post mutiny I question the pharse

'status quo ante bellum' 

As the result, this is clearly not the case. Not only did company rule end (and direct British govenemtn rule being) but a number of native rulers were reoved from even their token positions. [[Slatersteven 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)]]

requested edit

{{editprotected}} request. Please delete claim that this was the worst genocide in history, as it is patently false. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim that it was the worst genocide in history. It claims that if a particular estimate of 10 million killed is accurate, then it was the worst genocide in history. Od Mishehu 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interst has anyone read the book in question? If not should we be including it? Ralph Ralph 11:22, 5 November 2007 (IST)

When the statment was added (And I belive that the situation has not changed) the book had not been published. The statment was based on a review/criteque from the Guardian newspaper (from I presume pre-publication publicity). [[Slatersteven 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]]

And as such material about the book should not be added until someone has at least checked that that review is a fair summary of it.Ralph 11:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate to say this

But as there is no attempt to claim...

'- For example, in October, 2006, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament said: '

... that this person is an historian, it makes it clear he is only a politician then the reason for its deleation seems to me to not be justified. [[Slatersteven 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)]]

The quote was used as an example of how 'some historians' viewed the use of the term 'Indian Mutiny' and the Speaker is not a historian, hence the edit. As it has been opened up to include Indian politicians the quote is valid. Ralph 11:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. ChiefJaca 19:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did restore the Speaker's quote. ChiefJaca 18:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be re-structured to give it less prominance, as at the monent it seems to take up more room then many of the actual sections on the muinty itself. [[Slatersteven 22:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)]]

It is an overly long quote by a politician and I have doubts about its use at all but only the first section is relevant to the point it is being used to prove.Ralph 11:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh & Pakistan

Err, my history is a bit rusty, but I believe that Bangladesh and Pakistan did not come into existence until partition. Ordinarily, an article about an historical event uses place names that were in existence at the time of the event. I would suggest that using Bangladesh and Pakistan is inappropriate - perhaps there exist contemporary names for those areas that could be used? Ronnotel 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Undivided India, including parts of modern day Bangladesh and Pakistan will do? srs 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In the context of 1857, doesn't the term India pertain to all of the areas in question? Perhaps the underlying link can be to Undivided India. Ronnotel 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Were there any risings in the area we call Bangladesh? [[Slatersteven 13:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Did it even take place in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Looking at the map Bengal seems well out of it. Pakistan seems it might be too (not so clear cut here, haven't bothered to compare. Josquius 11:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on events in the Punjab embraces much of present-day Pakistan, as the administrative centre for the whole area was Lahore. There were few notable popular uprisings, but plenty of rebellions or attempted rebellions by Bengal Army units in the area. HLGallon 02:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

But did these occur in the area made up by the modern state of Pakistan, or in areas that are now administerd by India? [[Slatersteven 18:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]]

That is irrelevant. "Pakistan", "Republic of India", and "Bangladesh" are post-1947 entities. So, the correct term for the site of the uprising is "India" -- that's what the place was known in 1857. utcursch | talk 08:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I partialy agree, The location was pre-partitian India, the point that Rontel was makiing is that Pakistan and Bagladesh were not involved in the mutiny (in the sence that no fighing took place within the areas that make up those two countries), so should not be included as locations of the fighting. [[Slatersteven 17:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, I'm not so much worried about exact geographical coordinates of the hostilities as I am about using anachronistic terms. In terms of balancing accuracy with brevity, I am suggesting the term India (cf. 1857), which roughly translates to India, as taken in the context of 1857. The underlying link is to the page Undivided India, which provides context on what the term India represented in 1857. For an infobox, I think that's the right level of detail. Any discussion of the exact locations of hostilities should be presented in the article. Keeping this in the context of 1857 also has the benefit of avoiding present day political baggage - there's enough of that in the article already. Ronnotel (talk) 14:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whats going on in the opening paragraph?

Somethings gone a bit wrong in the opening para of the article. Stray gallery tag, seemingly misplaced potted history of british rule. Could someone who knows whats going on in general on this page please fix as its a bit confusing (and obv a mess). I'd try and sort myself but clearly there are some editors looking afer the page so I'll leave to them. Just flagging up :-) Sassf 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a crusade and the opening paragraph is now turned into spoils of the war. Please see last three sections below to understand, and may be contribute. The discussion is more or less one-sided and you may not see it last long before a so-called APPROPRIATELY NEUTRAL administrator bans the only other person saying what you just said. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

How Common the the phrase

'Arranging in terms of popular usage' Is this based on market research, the circulation of one newspaper or a study of the titles of all the books published on the Mutiny? Just how widley used (especialy outside India) is the term 'first war of indpendance? [[Slatersteven 18:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Outside of India, the term "Indian Mutiny" is more popular. ChiefJaca 05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps "more commonly used" is the correct phrase.GraemeLeggett 10:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the order of the names by which the Mutiny is called should be based on what the majority around the world call it, [[Slatersteven 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]]

In terms of sheer numbers, more people around the world call it and know it as "The First War of Independence". However, I guess if you want to tailor the article towards how people know it in the west - then you can keep it the way you've changed it. What's the wikipedia policy on this? ChiefJaca 04:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

On what evidance do you base this claim? [[Slatersteven (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]

If it's going to be an issue, why not use alphabetical order? (or would the use of the english alphabet to determine order be imperialist? As it would result in First War of Indian Independence coming first, I suspect not ;) Tomandlu 11:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Alphabetical order is fine. But before I change it - what exactly does Wikipedia policy state? -- ChiefJaca (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Should the naming order not refelct the liklyhood that a given name will show up in a search for books to further reseearch? [[Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Here is the Wikipedia convention on naming for event "Article names for current and historical events are often controversial. In particular, the use of strong words such as "massacre" can be a focus of heated debate. The use of particular strong words is neither universally encouraged nor discouraged. The spirit of these guidelines is to favour familiar terms used to identify the event. Rules to select a name should be applied in the following sequence:

1. If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view.
2. If there is no common name for the event, and there is a generally accepted word used when identifying the event, the title should include the word even if it is a strong one such as "massacre" or "genocide" or "war crime". However, to keep article names short, avoid including more words than are necessary to identify the event. For example, the adjective "terrorist" is usually not needed.
3. If there is no common name for the event and no generally accepted descriptive word, use a descriptive name that does not carry POV implications."

Full Text : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28events%29

The spirit of these guidelines is to favor familiar terms: the most familiar term for English speaks in sheer numbers is First War of Independence, isn't it? ChiefJaca (talk) 04:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On what do you base this assertion. Look at the Further reading section, there are no works whose title include the pharse 'First War of Independence' (and I suspect that in many countires (such as the US, or Pakistan the use of the term first was ndependence might been seen as rather Indo-centric, it will certaily casue confusion) in English. even a search on Amazon provides a vast array of books wholey un-realted to the Mutiny whilst the phrase 'First War of indian independence' produced 6 results. On the other hand the phrase 'Indian mutiny' produced over 200, of which at least 12 (it seemed rather pointless after that) were unique. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]] Get out of INTERNET. The sheer population of India (especially north India) makes the assertion of ChiefJaca correct that First War of Independence is bigger in terms of overall numbers. Get into INTERNET again but not AM(erica)ZON. Go to Google and do a search for both 'First War of Independence' as well as 'Indian Mutiny' to see the number of results thrown. Anything else? THANK YOU for your cooperation and understanding! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No the population of Northern India does not prove the assertion; firstly the population of northern Indian is not the majority of the worlds population (and as such can only be used to prove what northern India thinks), secondly it has not been demonstrated that all of India’s Northern population call it the first war of independence. (And the opposite has been proved to be the case, for example the Sikh view seems to differ somewhat from that). Unfortunately many of the results for first war of independence have nothing to do with the Indian mutiny. On page two of the search for example The First Italian War of Independence (1848-49)-- a Military History and one about the American war of independence. So out of 20 hits two (or 10%) were unrelated) Likely to my mind to cause confusion. So of course it will throw up more hits, its very unspecific and imprecise and refers to a vast number of un-related wars. So out of 40 hits all were relevant. After four pages of Indian Mutiny I found not one page not related to the Mutiny. No confusion there then. So out of 40 hits all were relevant. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I knew you would come to this: 1 As far as North Indian population is concerned, only ONE of the five Hindi-speaking states (U.P.) is bigger than entire Australia in terms of population. Does that indicate whether it is majority or not? (I did not even count states like Orissa, Maharashtra or Bengal).

I have myself cited Dainik Jagran Jagran ePaper / Jagran - taken over by Yahoo now) & Jvalant had cited Dainik Bhaskar many times in past, if you go through you will know what North Indians think.

As far as Sikh view is concerned, I can prove my assertion given the fact that Jagran is published from at least 3 cities in Punjab too. Plus, have a look at the references on article page. There are a couple of books from Punjab too.

Now the funniest of all, which i was eagerly waiting to reply. DO NOT search first war of independence, use "First Indian war of Independence" (283 hits - all relevant) OR "First War of India's Independence" (51 hits) OR "First War of Indian Independence" (551 results - all relevant).

What say now? Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware Wikipedia is not an Indian encyclopaedia it’s a global one, and as such should represent what is the most common name used not just within India (even a large part of it) but the world as a whole.

As to the Sikh view well there is this http://www.sikhspectrum.com/082004/1857_mutiny_g_s.htm Then there seems to be a movement that seeks to portray the first Anglo-Sikh war as the first war of independence. On May 10, 2007 Lok Sabha Deputy Speaker Charanjit Singh Atwal led a group of MPs to protest against 1845 Anglo-Sikh war not being treated as the first War of Independence. Atwal's remarks surprised President A P J Abdul Kalam and several other dignitaries present at a function to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 1857 uprising. Backed by three MPs -- Rattan Singh Ajnala, Virendra Singh Bajwa (both Akali Dal) and Tarlochan Singh (Independent), Atwal argued that projection of 1857 as the First War of Independence was a "misnomer" as the Anglo-Sikh war preceded that. And http://www.tribuneindia.com/2007/20070511/main2.htm Are they wrong? Then we have this view http://www.panthic.org/news/129/ARTICLE/2623/2006-07-16.html

Clearly there is not consensus in northern India about the fact that the Mutiny was the first war of independence.

What is the circulation of the newspapers you mention, Dainik Bhaskar has 18 editions and a combined circulation of 1.7 million Dainik Jagran is one of India’s largest newspapers with a circulation of about 1.5 million for a total of 3.3 million out of a total population of around 600 million (in fact the population of non-Hindi speakers (and thus unlikely to read the newspapers) is 60 million) or rather less then 1%. Hardly it seems to me a ringing endorsement of what these newspapers say.

Searching for the exact phrase “Indian mutiny” produced 240,000 hits. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]] Of which ONLY 753 were relevant... How come you knew about the Italian and American First Wars of Independence on page 2 just a few hours back but not this one. Go till the last page sometimes like me before hurrying up. Cheers! [[Bobby Awasthi (talk) 21st November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 08:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

763 (not 753) is still (as fr as I am aware) more then 551 (the largetst result you found), which is the point I was making. "first war of india independence" 48 Hits (by going to the last page) "First Indian war of Independence" 271 hits (by going to the last page) "First War of India's Independence" 47 hits (by going to the last page) for a total of 366 less then half the total for "Indian Mutiny" (and not including any other combinations such as "Mutiny in India" (362), or "India's mutiny" (only 63)). [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]] As per mathematics rules of Permutations & Combinations; the number of combinations possible for First war of Indian Independence = 4X3X2X1=24 (not accounting for the words like India's etc which gives another 252 hits - on last page) which will be MORE than 2X1 offered by Indian Mutiny (2 words only). Also, just to let you know that in 2 of your 3 searches you have not really checked what I had pointed to. I dont know how you searched because "first war of Indian Independence" ALONE gives 524 results (by going to the last page). Anyway, the point is, why was it not done when all parties had kind of agreed to make it an alphabetically ordered list when a neutral editor had suggested. Just because the one editing to that order had given a wrong argument? What is important for editors here, one-up-man-ship or contents quality? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I googled (using quotes + 1857) "first war of indian independence" 1857 and got 926 hits, whereas "indian mutiny" 1857 got 104,000. I don't see how rearranging the words is relevant. If we are talking about a specific name, then shouldn't we match the specific name? I have to say, this looks like a storm in a teacup/chaicup, and I'd be perfectly happy to see an alphabetical list of the various names. Tomandlu (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

How is my google engine different from yours? I got ONLY 828 using the same search as yours. Anyways, do we agree on something here? I would offer you a Brook Bond or a Lipton (both Darjeeling British Brands - no pun intended officially) for this is a rare show of generosity (again no pun intended officially). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Up and/or down a few percent isn't unusual for google (I just re-ran fwoii and got 997 this time). Google is very distributed, so synchronisation diffs are bound to show up in number of hits. Tomandlu (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-arranging the words is not relevant, and will most likely throw up the same results (the same pages more then once). Besides Wikipedia wants one name not three, so the most common name (with independance in it has 524 hits, Indian mutiny has 763, thats more. It does not matter how many permutations there are, its how common in use it is, The Great indian Sepoy Mutiny (4x3x2x1 = 24) has a lot of words in it , but I bet it's not that often seen (5, all relevant)) but using the above 'permutation' system it's as common and therfore as valid. We should obey Wikipedia's naming rule, I did not rase the issue of the rule (nor of the naming order) but would expect it to be obeyed by those who do. I would also susgsest that the name of the page is also changed to refelct this rule. If the issue was raised it was raised for a reason. [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]]

If sikhs are from Bengal, then I bet, you and I belong to Timbuktoo. As far as the name of article was concerned, the term rebellion was a compromise between two sides and you need to read at least this page's history (archives) if not Indian history to know more.

If you are talking with words like The great Indian Sepoy Mutiny then I would have to talk with sentences like the first war that india fought for its independence and so on.

Can we keep it alphabetical just to make it neutral? If not, Why not? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No I have said that the Sikhs come from the Punjab, which I have been led to believe is in Northern India. My first reason for the rejection of the suggested compromise is that the suggestion was made, by someone supporting the independence tag, that the rules should be obeyed, instead of (and as an alternative to) the suggested compromise I am now agreeing with that person, we should obey Wikirules. Is that not what a compromise is, agreeing to let the other party have their way? My second reason is that as it has now been demonstrated that at least one (former) user of this page had sock puppet accounts (1 and very possibly 2) we cannot be sure that this has not this is not happening, or will not happen, again. As such it seems to me that it is impossible to come to a consensus that may not be false, and as such a compromise is not really possible. On the other hand wikirules are not biased, they treat everyone the same way, and with the same value, they are not open to manipulation by the unscrupulous (well not as much as consensus). Three (this is rather more controversial). Compromise has been tried before and this has never satisfied any party. There have been constant and continued attempts to find ways to circumvent them. Constant attempts to lean the page in the direction of specific views or agendas. As such it is time to say that the rules say this, obey them, again they are not biased and are designed to ensure a neutral viewpoint. If you can prove your view there is no need to fear, if you cant then it’s not a fact it’s an opinion.

See Below. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I apologise, I did say Sikhs from Bengal, I meant to say Punjab, but was looking at a map of Bengal presidency, sorry for any confusion. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

NPOV Infobox? A BIG Joke!

Thanks to the NPOV flag bearers and their bootlicking Gungadins, the Infobox has become slightly clean. However, I just found out an interesting contrast: Infobox says: Combatant 1 = Rebellious East India Company Sepoys, 7 Indian princely states, deposed rulers of Oudh and Jhansi. Combatant 2 = British Army, British East India Company, Native troops, Sepoys and Europeans, Princely states aiding the British

With my limited understanding of above english, I presume this was a political-cum-economical war in which there were states/rulers, a company and armies from both sides were involved.

However, if that is the case, I am a bit confused with the following sentences from the section, Devil's wind. A letter published after the fall of Delhi in the "Bombay Telegraph" and subsequently reproduced in the British press testified to the scale and nature of the retaliation: ".... All the city people found within the walls (of the city of Delhi) when our troops entered were bayoneted on the spot, and the number was considerable, as you may suppose, when I tell you that in some houses forty and fifty people were hiding. These were not mutineers but residents of the city, who trusted to our well-known mild rule for pardon. I am glad to say they were disappointed". Another brief letter from General Montgomery to Captain Hodson, the conqueror of Delhi exposes how the British military high command approved of the cold blooded massacre of Delhites: "All honour to you for catching the king and slaying his sons. I hope you will bag many more!" Another comment on the conduct of the British soldiers after the fall of Delhi is of Captain Hodson himself in his book, Twelve years in India: "With all my love for the army, I must confess, the conduct of professed Christians, on this occasion, was one of the most humiliating facts connected with the siege." (Hodson was killed during the recapture of Lucknow in early 1858). Please help me understand, HOW and WHY the retaliating British armies (INCLUDING THEIR NATIVE SOLDIERS) killed ALL CIVILIANS (surely some relatives of NATIVE SOLDIER component of their own armies) without any revolt within their ranks? Oh, dont even bother, because NPOV flag bearers would forget the long debates we had on the factors of only two asian varieties available on British side, (Sikhs & Gurkhas) and they both were not really NATIVE in these parts of India. Just to cut it short and keep it NPOV, I would strongly recommend that the infobox be kept as such and the Devil's wind section be deleted. It would become strongly BRITISH NPOV like the infobox is currently appearing. Welcome to La La Land of NPOV Wikipedia style. And by the way, where are those civilians represented in the infobox? Currently MORE on the British side (NATIVE/SEPOY/BOOTLICKER whatever) than on the side shown KILLED/CAPTURED/MASSACRED in the section that should be discarded outright. (See, I gave you clues to start cleaning up another section of your history - still being that idiot Indian who kept ranting about the rules while the Company spread its domain.) --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Were the Sepoys from the Madras and Bomney precidency armies Sikhs and Ghurkas then? No they were also Hindoo and Musleman (just not high cast as in the Bengal army). [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]] Madras and Bombay Presidencies form part of India that rebelled? Eureka! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh I see what your getting at. So you only taking into account the area of India that actualy rose. Which does include Bombey, there were small scale risings. But it does rather make for an interesting war of indepaendance[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Good morning. All I am saying is, that India involved in this rebellion, WAS MORE THAN India under the Company rule, is my english that bad?

Please cite to me a source, when you say there were small scale risings in Bombay.

And Bombay/Madras do also make an interesting NATIVE ARMY in Bengal/Oudh. --213.42.21.148 (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Saul davids book is the source for three mutinies in Bombey precidency. What by the way is an intresting native army?. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Well, Saul David has written ONLY ONE book that is called The Indian Mutiny: 1857. But I am surprised again at the selective amnesia present here. He ALSO wrote: In 1857 the native troops of the Bengal Army rose against their colonial masters. They were quickly joined by thousands of discontented civilians in what was to become the bloodiest insurrection in the history of the British Empire. If you are referring to an obscure event from this book, please do take note of the highlighted words ALSO and accept it to be a War of Independence unless thousands of Indian civilians joining it means differently to you than if it were thousands of British ones during American war of independence. Microsoft Word gives the closest synonym of the word insurrection to be rebellion and NOT mutiny by the way.

Now let me give you an insight on Bombay mutinies. There was one in 1683 (pretty close) and the other one was in 1946 (again pretty close so what if it was 90 years later). Apart from these two, the only mutiny that happened in 1857 in Bombay Presidency was the one in police chief Charles Forjett's HEAD. He had two soldiers blown up by canon on charges of conspiring to attack the firangis on Diwali night and the Maharashtrian banker Jagannath Shankarshet kept in custody for charges of sedition for 11 days and later released unsentenced. It is my mistake to have assumed that you knew Indian history well but it seems you are religiously editing the most controversial part of Indo-British joint history purely from the POV you have studied. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

ONLY ONE BOOK means 1 out of 8 that is relevant to the context here :). I knew you would read that and pounce on the oppurtunity. Bobby Awasthi (talk • contribs) 14:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By INTERESTIVE native army, all I meant was, British/Madras Presidency troops (even those were more than half British) are as NATIVE in Oudh/Bengal as are Scottish troops in Northern Ireland. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thousands out of a population of millions is not a national rising. In fact millions (more like 10 of millions) must have stayed loyal. Saul David's book is called the Indian Mutiny of 1857, that therefore is what he calls the war he . Moreover you seem to be saying that the revolt only occurred in Northern India, hardly a wide spread national rising, indeed it implies a local rising due to purely local issues unaffecting wider Indian societies. The 27th NI mutinied at Kolhapur. There was another at Gujurat Bhils. Sikhs are from Bengal.

insurrection /ins reksh’n/

 • noun a violent uprising against authority. 
 — DERIVATIVES insurrectionary adjective insurrectionist noun & adjective. 

— ORIGIN Latin, from insurgere ‘rise up’. (OED) [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Saul David's book is called ONLY this much: The Indian Mutiny not OF 1857 or whatever, at least on its own cover. But yes, his website says 1857 in addition (MINUS OF). By the way, do you have any idea of Indian population at that time. Also, are you aware that rough British estimates suggest 100,000 Indian (civilians & soldiers) died in that event. Obviously, any Indian historian would not subscribe to a figure by the other side, but thats natural and I am not going to argue on what I dont know. However, please show the same spirit and refrain from a loose comment like In fact millions (more like 10 of millions) must have stayed loyal. Just to let you know, the regions in which the rebellion happened, the words Devil's Wind came into picture too. And you might be interested in reading the course of action followed by British troops. I would question the logic of killing an entire city's population where millions (or 10s of millions) loyals lived :). Now can we represent the civilians PARTICIPATING in the rebellion in some way on the side that rebelled, unlike current situation where they are showing up as NATIVE IRREGULARS on the side that eventually killed them? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Population of India must have been in the multiple 100,000's or else the whole population was killed. Which still means that the percentage of Indians who backed the mutiny was below 20% (of course in the areas that revolted it was higher, but a regional rebellion is not a national one, According to one estimate one-fifth of the Indian population in 1857 directly or indirectly participated in the Revolt). Indeed it could be sad that (if we accept a figure of 10% (a very high figure) of Indians total population were killed that would put the population around a million (perhaps my use of millions was too vague, but as we do not know the exact figure it seemed to be a rather tolerable estimate, 10 of millions is perhaps high)). The term Native Iregulars refers to units such as skiners horse, not civilinas. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Use of word ARSON

I want to question the use of word Arson in the opening paragraph of the article in sentence The first signs of brewing discontent, involving incidents of arson in cantonment areas, began to appear in January 1857. since the definition or motives on the page for arson itself do not correspond to the motives implied by this article.

Arson, in general, is the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose. Motives listed on that article are Vandalism, Domestic Violence, Revenge, Forest Fire (man-made) & Political. A rebellion/mutiny/revolt/war of independence is NEITHER. It could have been political if the events happened AFTER India had some political grouping presence (which started only around 1890s). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

IMHO "Political" is a fairly broad church. Also IMHO the listing of motives for arson is, well, odd, and inevitably incomplete - what about, for example, financial? (which is probably one of the most common motives for arson) Do similiar lists appear for murder? Tomandlu (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as your question about financial motives is concerned, it is covered in the very second sentence of the Arson article. The motives of arsonists vary. The possibility of financial gain often drives arsonists to file fraudulent insurance claim after setting fire. And yes a simmilar and even broader list of both motives/reasons and exclusions for defining it as a Murder exsits on that page. And however much I agree that political is really a broad term, the issue here is political and cantonment dont really go hand in hand.--Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The third paragraph cites vandalism as a reason for arson and later it suggests political reasons too. But the whole article is largely unreferenced. I think the general assumed meaning for arson is "deliberately setting fire to things that aren't yours". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

or "deliberately setting fire to things that you own, have insured and are losing you money". Oh, and your definition would need to include "without the consent of the owner" (I gave someone a light for their cigarette the other day - I think legally I'm in the clear :) Tomandlu (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

What other word could be used apart from arson if you think about it?
'Setting fire to' is a bit long, 'razed' is more often applied to destroying entire cities...Setting fire to things that shouldn't be set on fire is arson.--Josquius (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might be pedantic, "arson" is perhaps incorrect as it derives from the Latin "ardere", meaning "to burn" in the sense of "to be on fire". "Incendiarism", deriving from the Latin "incendere" which means "to set on fire" is perhaps a better word, but has no strict legal meaning as "arson" does. HLGallon (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont THINK ABOUT IT when I write here. I need to see facts and show facts. It is pretty clear to all, that the word arson has a broader meaning; which MAY or MAY NOT be applied to those cases mentioned on the page. We dont even have facts/references which say the events were direct precursors to something big. They could have been simply fires ignited for personal reasons by individuals. In any case, is there any information that the number of such cantonment fires rose significantly higher after JAN 1857 compared to preceeding years? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Section on fires at Ambala added, with citation. (Unfortunately, no data on fires before 1857; but the fires that year were obviously noteworthy). HLGallon (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

OK you seem to have a bit of a personal vendetta against me...I was just adding my view to this discussion, I'm not one of the main people here. You should DIRECT that towards someone else.--Josquius (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[User:Josquius|Josquius] is making a personal attack on the standing of [User:Bobby Awasthi|Bobby Awasthi] by making an allegation when there is not a single statement from later DIRECTED TO or USING THE NAME of former in this section. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan unblocked, 3-month topic ban

Please note that User:DemolitionMan has apologized and agreed to a 3-month topic ban on Desi-related articles. I have therefore rescinded his indef block. Ronnotel (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems a better judgement/agreement. I request DM to concentrate on knowledge/material, which he has lots than waste time on people who may have fairly less of it. Would wait to see another DM after 3 months here. Till then wish me luck to face the holy war. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dying to be home

"Given that the British were already dying, it defies logic as to why Nana Sahib would offer a safe passage and then order the alleged massacre."

Is this a verifiabel fact or an opinion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk(Slatersteven 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)}

"The British endured three weeks of the Siege of Cawnpore with little water or food, suffering continuous casualties to men, women and children. On June 25 the Nana Sahib offered fairly generous surrender terms, and Wheeler had little choice but to accept. The Nana Sahib agreed to let them have safe passage to Allahabad but on June 27 when the British left their fortified barrack buildings to board the promised riverboats, firing broke out. Who fired first has remained a matter of debate." Hence the fact that they were offered a safe passage is indeed a verifiable fact.

Jvalant 19:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a verifiable fact that they were offered safe passage, not that it defies logic that Nana Sahib would renege upon that agreement. Nor does your quoted passage (source please) indicate that it defied logic, in fact it seems to leave the question of who fired first (and why) open. (Slatersteven 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC))

By the same token, "The surviving women and children from the massacre by the river were led to the Bibi-Ghar (the House of the Ladies) in Cawnpore. On the July 15, with British forces approaching Cawnpore and some believing that they would not advance if there were no hostages to save, their murders were ordered" - Is this a verifiable fact?

Jvalant 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In the sense there are sources that state they were killed yes. What is said in the article is not a statement it’s a question. By the way are there any sources that say they weere ot killed(Slatersteven 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Can I behave like an idiot for a moment and ask a question SS? If I am sitting all over a city surrounding an enemy garrison which will finish off entire stores faster than imagined and I want to kill them all, what is the easier way for me (considering I am a seasoned ruler/diplomat/feudal lord)? To make all that effort of offering them FAIRLY GENEROUS terms, then planning a sabotage and saving half of them after the execution of the plot, feed them for no use and then kill them months later when another army approaches? OR to simply let them die within the garrison (or let them come out in despair and then kill them and claim later they got killed in final fighting)? I think being too stupid, I would prefer the second option. Well, the Intelligent people on this talk (and the previous archives) often seemed to defer... AND WE TALK OF FACT vs. LOGIC. I dont think all our ancestors, British & Indians alike were still at Homo Erectus (or worse Chipmunk) stage of brain development in 1857. --Bobby Awasthi 15:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that this was not the first time that such actions have been carried out, or indeed the last, it is not logical to assume that the massacre was not planed. Offering them generous terms does not imply that he did not intend to reengage upon the agreement, in fact (and assuming Nan Sahib knew how desperate thins were in the garrison) it is logical to say that the terms were so generous precisely to give the British an offer they could not refuse, knowing full well he had no intention of keeping it. Speaking logically (as opposed to factually, something I assumed was part and parcel of an encyclopaedia) you offer only as much as you have to give, not more, unless you have an ulterior motive. It could be said that a victory however achieved could (and did) increase his prestige with the other leaders of the revolt. Far more then just sitting back and letting then starve, hardly a triumph of martial valour. Moreover this assumes a number of factors A] That Nan Sahib knew the situation within Wheelers entrenchment. B] That he could be sure that relief was not going to arrive before the garrison fell (dependant heavily on A above). C] That he or his Sepoys were not thirsting for vengeance for the series of rather bloody (and perhaps humiliating) repulses they had suffered. D] That he had control over the more bloodthirsty and aggressive elements within the mutineer ranks (in other words the massacre was not planed by Nana Sahib, and he had no knowledge of it). It could be pointed out that the murder at the Bibi-Ghar were not it seemed carried our by Nan Sahibs troops, and may even have been instigated by other elements within the rebel ranks. It could even be argued that Nana Sahib (perhaps like the King of Delhi and maybe the Rani of Jahnsi) was not more then a puppet, and one that was not overly pleased with many of the actions carried out in his name (Azamulah Kahn come up to the podium and collect your prize). (Slatersteven 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

I am taking off the last line that El C corrected. I don't think it adds anything at all. And El C, "Britishers" is correct English, albeit it is not used too often in the West, where the American term "Brits" suffices. Indians still do refer to them as "Britishers". Jvalant 17:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we use the term "Britons" which is how we in the UK referr to ourselves in the news or in text books etc. Brits sounds unprofessional (and american) and Britishers to sounds incorrect. [Pagren] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.109.66.146 (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we use the term "First War of Indian Independence" which is how we in India refer to our history in the news or in the text books etc. "Rebellion" sounds unprofessional (an American) and Mutiny too sounds racist (British). Jvalant 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term 'Mutiny' is not racist, just wrong.Rsloch 13:20, 14 October 2007 (BST)

Jvalant - please take that cactus out your bum - its making you very aggressive still...oh and please don't say Britishers - I now find it racist and offensive (Indian). I was just talking about how we referr to a race of people (even if you think they are Nazi's) - would you like it if we starting calling Indians "Indies" or Indjuns (also very american). Try and think about the context - this isn't a discussion about the title of the article its about the language we use in this article. Its an English language article so it makes sence to use correct English or American English terminology. Thanks for your understanding. [Pagren 07/09/2007]

Thanks - I would have forgotten to take the cactus out of my bum if not for your supportive words. Now read this -

http://in.news.yahoo.com/060906/139/67bgd.html

http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=britisher&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact

Infact run a search on google for the word "Britisher" - it has never been used as a slur unlike Injuns. And Indian English terminology would be more appropriate for an Indian history article. Jvalant 10:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Britisher is NEITHER Inappropriate (OR SLUR) NOR Indian. It is a widely used slang away from Britain, and originated in America. But the fact remains, it feels like that very cactus to all britons for no rhyme or reason yet discovered. (Ref: Mind the Gaffe! R. L. Trask. New York: Harper, 2001, 2006. 290 pages. Paperback. ISBN-13: 978-0061132209; ISBN-10: 0061132209. “The standard term for a citizen of the United Kingdom is Briton, though some Britons strangely object to this term . . . Britisher is strictly American, and it should be avoided in careful writing as almost everyone in Britain objects to it.”). Indian word which could have been objected to, if used, would have been Gora which is again not really derogatory (means fair-skinned people, whether Indian, European, or from other regions.) Seems like someone is over-obsessed with that cactus, may the one holding it please pass it on so it can be shared alike by both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Awasthi (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On reading the cited text over and over, I realized that it meant They just object to anything not spoken by Themselves. They stands for Brit___s (please fill in the blanks as per the side of bed you woke up today.) --Bobby Awasthi 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Personaly speaking I dont see a problom with any word, it is the use that the user intends not how the listener (or reader) percives the word that to my mind is improtant. If the word is used deliberatly to be offensive or confrontational then it should not be used. If it is meant as a short had convininace then I cannot see a problom, but that must apply to all words. If on the other hand you reseve the right to tell someone what language you do not wish them to use (becasue you find if offensive) then I fail to se what right you have to deny someone else the saem right. [[Slatersteven 17:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]]

This odd sentence has been put back in. I don't think anyone would disagree with the logic of it (it seems obvious that the "incident" at the river was not a planned ambush - rather a panic-driven skirmish that blew out of control). The problem is that the sentence is opinionated analysis, not history. So it's not encyclopedic. If someone inserted a line that said, "many of the combatants were really scared", this would undeniably be true, but would also be unencyclopedic and so unworthy of inclusion. --Oscar Bravo 10:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what is obvious about it, it seem to me just as obvious that it was, artillery placed along the water side for example implies a degree of pre-meditation. [[Slatersteven 13:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]

A gun-license on your name, for example, implies a motive of murder to a certain degree. When did you have your las kill SS? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 17:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If I own a gun and point it at someone in it implies I may be willing to shoot that person, if I then shoot that person it indicated pre-meditation. If I keep it locked up at home then it implies that I own a gun, not that I intend to shot some one with it. [[Slatersteven 19:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

God Save NPOQ! Infobox - Location

The words say India (cf. 1857), I assume it means India as of 1857. Fine! The wikilink refers to the page called Company rule in India. As they say in Arabic, MABROOK! Pioneer British History writers have annexed Gwalior just 150 years after the SEPOY MUTINY to include it within the borders of Company rule of India despite the linked page itself showing Gwalior as a Hindu Kingdom. Oh and guess what, someone would jump to tell me that Gwalior never participated in the filthy mutiny; so did Lakshmibai capture Gwalior against its armies ALONE after losing Jhansi?
Welcome to NPOV LA LA Land of nootrle Wikipedians & and Outblazed Gungadins! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

So they were not rebeling against company rule (as they were not ruled by then, and from who did the Rani capture it from exactly?.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Re: So they were not rebeling against company rule. Exactly, so how is the wikilink referring to only Company ruled areas?

Re: from who did the Rani capture it from exactly. From Scindias using their own army. Thank You. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

So they were not a native rising against colonial rule.

So who excaltly were they taking the city from, not the British, or the Company. So it must have beena native ruler, less of a war of independance and more of an oportunisitc grab for power. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]] And what was the British Army doing within 2 months of that oportunisitc grab for power; in Gwalior, during those beautiful sunny days of rebellion? Trying to help a friendly ruler when there was a stick in their own backyard? Anyways, thats besides the point, can you please tell me how we justify & wikilink that the events of this rebellion were limited to company ruled Indian areas? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Attacking a hostile foreign army that was providing refuge for foegn backed agitators?, no of course not. They were chasing the last remenats of the reble forces that had moved into the area. I do not seek to justify the link, I was mealy pointing out that the Mutiny was far more complex then just a war of indepdance, that in differing area ther were differing (and sometines mutualy hostile) resaons for the war. As to the issue of location, if if did not occour in India C1857 then where? the boarders as they exist today (then the Sikhs have to be considerd natives, which then undermine your complaint about the info box), then there is the qustion of did major revolts actualy occour within thse areas. Britsh (or Company) India and surrounding areas, perhaps but a bit vague. [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Really interesting, British attacking Scindia's rebelling NATIVE/LOCAL/GWALIOR BORN soldiers based INSIDE Gwalior means Attacking a hostile foreign army that was providing refuge for foegn backed agitators? So Jhansi is MORE FOREIGN than Britain in Gwalior. Good one! Did I question India C1857? I think I questioned the LINK. :0 - Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you will find that I said that was not the case, that the British were not attacking a foregn backed agitator (and yes the British were engaging in a bit of inpromptu land grab). I presume that if you question the link you question the relevance of that link (and thus what the link says), if not could you clarify what you are contesting? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

The relevance of the LINK. Obviously, the link points to a different India than what was actually the territory involved. [[Bobby Awasthi (talk) 21 November 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk) 08:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So what do you think it should say[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]] It should only link to the map of India as in 1857 not the all reverred Company Bahadur! --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

THIS could be a good one IMO. Maybe, up to all to decide. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be unreadabel, not a very good candidate[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Oh ye God! Thou doth not appreciate anything except thy kingdom. I link it until you find a more readable one. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia came up with an unreadable character warning (besides this is the English Language Wikipedia). [[Slatersteven 19:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

Debate over name (again)

I've undone a revision that basically stated that the Sikhs couldn't call the 1845 action "The First War of Indian Independence" because it wasn't "India-wide" (oh, the irony). If people are uncomfortable with the current version and reference to the 1845 conflict, can it be discussed?

I agree with you Tom and I support you. Your edit seems pretty much required. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Neither was the mutiny so it cannot be called the first was of independace, can we romove the referance please.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I don't agree - people are quite at liberty to call 1857 TFWII - they just can't stop others from calling the 1845 TFWII. We're not saying what it is, we're saying what it's called. What it is is a serious of historical events. War and mutiny are essentially abstracts for describing a series of events, not the events themselves. I'm drunk and filosophizing... Tomandlu (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I partialy agree, if we allow the 1845 TFWII to remain in the article then so can 1857 TFWII, but if you refuse to let one in becasue it was not India wide then you can't let the other stand for the saem reason[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Wikipedia is SUPPOSED TO maintain a neutral stand and tell people WHAT the events are called. It is not a tool to technically disect and research on ANY event. Now that there are SEVERAL sources claiming it was called so, phrase TFWII continues to be important on this page. If we are here to analyze scientifically, then the very word Indian Mutiny stands nullified too because the whole rising was against a TRADING COMPANY which means there were no official soldiers and no official rising happened against no government (which did not exist anyways). But your and my arguments in this section only amount to ORIGINAL RESEARCH and we are only allowed to be story tellers not script writers who use logic. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then alow others to make the claim too. There are several sources claiming the first Anglo-Sikh was was TFWII. I do not debate the fact that some (not all) indians call it TFWII, I just ask that you treat otehr claims by the saem staderd you ask us to treat yours. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Good morning! There was an edit by Tom and I supported it. If you think the edit was wrong, go ahead and argue. Anyways, the statement that says SOME Indians call it TFWII has NOT been removed. Tom only removed the IF/SO/BUT/NO logic after it which I agree is just a personal opinion. By the way, dont you think, I should also use your logic and put FF also in the infobox. It is beyond doubts that a significant number of people (and the Indian Government call them so. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which part of the info box is opinion? [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Do you even realize which section and what edit you are arguing over? The said edit NEVER happened in the infobox. Good morning! That gives me some sunlight to ponder over edit qualities. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did you write 'By the way, dont you think, I should also use your logic and put FF also in the infobox.' if we are not disscusing the Infobox?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Can someone answer these?

... get androcles? well, maybe, there are many Indian mistresses available, and cheap too!

An interesting concoction mixed, by the king, oops! queen, and the slave:
Here we go, [[1]]
And the revert by someone, who did not realize he is being dragged into an edit war so he could be reported under WP:3RR.
Next, [[2]];
and so on.
Arguments placed:
Queen: yes, issue is under review. Leave it at the most npov for now
Idiot Hindu Nationalist: Rv Vandalism
Repeat: [[3]]
Arguments placed:
Queen: see the mediation page. Leave the NPOV version
Idiot Hindu Nationalist: Rv Vandalism
One Question here (copied from bottom, as suggested to make it more coherent)

Repeatedly used word by one side is NPOV.
NPOV as in? NPOV as in how the queen and Gungadin feel. Or NPOV as in what state the page was, before the edit war began?
Also I think I got Wikipedia rules wrong. Is a request for mediation or a report to Arbcom, a defacto authorization to change to what YOU think is NPOV?

Another one: [[4]] this time slave fills in for the queen lest the game is turned on wrong side:
Arguments placed:
Slave: rv vandalism by Jvalant aka DemolitionMan
As expected: [[5]]
Idiot Hindu Nationalist: Rv Vandalism
WP:3RR taken care of, queen is back in action: [[6]]
Arguments placed:
Queen: rv vandal. Looks like harder measures will need to be taken
Hindu Nationalist does not realize he is on verge of breaking WP:3RR, [[7]];
but the argument given for immediate revert [[8]] by the slave (taking care of queen’s safety from WP:3RR) is
leave that to the arbcomm to decide. for now leaving the page in an npov state.
Another Question here (from bottom, as suggested to make it more coherent)
Arbcom will take care of WHAT? Mediator will do WHAT? In the end the page stayed the way it was edited according to one side and vandalized according to other.

3 pairs of reverts later, a charity is done on the snake charmer by the almighty queen:
: I'm sure you are more then aware of the 3RR. Its only my lazyness which means you haven't been reported
Reply: Rv vandalism - No - I am not aware of 3 RR - can you please explain it ?
Appear Androcles: Your sock User:CaptainNemo420 was certainly aware of it when it filed a 3RR report on User:Josquius. Next please.

Finally! Appear Angel: m (Protected Indian Rebellion of 1857: history of edit warring, block evasion [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] (expires 17:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)))
Action taken by THIS so-called Administrator:
PROTECTED WHAT? A version that STARTED the edit war, after being done WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSIONS or ARGUMENTS/CITATIONS/REFERENCES.
BANNED WHOM? The snake charmer, but not the queen and slave pair!

Question here (from bottom, as suggested to make it more coherent)
Was it correct for the administrator to protect the page the way it was edited according to one side and vandalized according to other.
Was it correct on part of all vigilant editors/contributors to ignore the remnants of large scale deletion just before the page was (according to me - ready to face consequences) wrongly protected?
Was it correct for the administrator to turn blind eye to bad conduct and utter disregard of WP:DR by one side and take action mechanically on other side?
Is there not a flaw in WP:3RR whereby, if two editors engage in edit warring against one in absolute unison, and together do 5 edits against 4 of the other side but get saved because they are seperate individuals?

Biggest question yet to be answered is: Just calling it an NPOV makes it NPOV? Or NPOV is best left to what state the page was, before the edit war began until both sides argue with facts and figures / citations and references rather than mere rants?
Last but not the least, The mediator walked out. And Arbcom threw the report out as a mere contents dispute.
WHY was the page not put back to what it was BY the same administrator after these decisions? (I definitely dont expect any shame on the part of the pair)

Just on a lighter vein, a classic use of Wikipedia (a la Brittania) –
[[9]] - Revision as of 13:19, 1 November 2007 Josquius
Argument placed:
(- trying to remove some of the overt Indian pov.) /
[[10]] - Revision as of 14:44, 1 November 2007 Josquius
Argument placed:
as the vandals will probally strawman that to death
The difference made: Zilch. (Good use of Wikipedia Sandbox called Indian Rebellion of 1857 – possibly reverted on a plea from Gungadin considering his long service)

How many BLIND NPOV CHAMPIONS swim across this channel everyday?
Gungadin is here every morning to fill up his jug, but his favourite author massacred is still a blessing from the Gora Sahib!

In a nutshell, the page on Indian Rebellion of 1857 is officially a sandbox for apprentice and ameteur British History writers and is EVERYTHING BUT NPOV.

If not responded within 48 hours, I would start editing according to arguments placed here. COME WITH FACTS & FIGURES / CITATIONS & REFERENCE, NOT MERE VIVA DEMOCRACY VIVA NEUTRALITY (a la Anglo-American Iraq) RANTS. I would not accept what YOU or (as per your count only) MAJORITY thinks as NPOV. If I give a citation/reference, classifying to be so under Wikipedia rules; unless you bring another equally credible one, clearly denying the one presented by me your statements would not be accounted as FACTS just because you claim to be NEUTRAL. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind rephrasing your text, because at the moment it's rather disjointed. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Tried to, but it seems there is just too much to report. Hope it helps you somehow mate.--Bobby Awasthi (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bobby Awasthi seems to be saying that he strongly objects to User:DemolitionMan's edits being reverted wholesale and User:DemolitionMan permbanned off wikipedia, something about a "so called" admin - that'd be User:Ronnotel who permbanned him, and various editors who tried to restore NPOV. Not sure if the next step is to bring along a suitcaseful of socks, like his buddy User:DemolitionMan did, but I wouldnt be surprised. srs (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Wish it was that easy! But I did not expect any better from those citing Amar Chitra Katha as a better reference. I asked some questions, which are beyond understanding when under certain cultural influence. I am sure there would be at least ONE intelligent editor here who would understand my questions and make slightly better sense. And ah yes! the above deletor Suresh Ramasubramanian aka srs happens to be ONE OF THE ONLY TWO . various editors who tried to restore NPOV. By the way, the so-called RESTORE was actually an initiation without any argument/citation/discussion/reference/inducement, if anyone checks by first wikilink above again as usual cited by me. Can someone shove something somewhere so that we start seeing facts and not gargles! And the use of socks is just another advertisement campaign by the one of the twin crusaders. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan was blocked due to persistent, disruptive editing, fecklessness with regard to dispute resolution and escalating personal attacks which included the use of vulgar epithets. There's no place on WP for that kind of behavior. My actions were reviewed by multiple administrators as well as ArbCom and deemed appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: My actions were reviewed by multiple administrators as well as ArbCom and deemed appropriate. Can you please direct me to that review page? (P.S. Do not bother to direct me to Arbcom, because 1. there is nothing even remotely relevant to your behaviour & 2. the third party comments there, on your behaviour in past, are equally worse as my allegations here. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I have not contributed to the page in a meaningful way, I cannot address your other questions. However, with respect to the indefinite block of User:DemolitionMan, here is the archived discussion that I initiated at WP:AN/I that seeks input on my decision to block. This version shows the ArbCom case labeled Indian Rebellion of 1857. You will note that I explicitly notified ArbCom of my actions and offered to undo them if appropriate. Additionally, you can check at User talk:DemolitionMan to see reviews of my block by multiple admins, all of whom declined to unblock. Ronnotel (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The only action of yours shown reviewed by multiple Administrators is the ban on a certain user. I am questioning the standards/rules/ethics followed in protecting and then unprotecting the article especially vis-a-vis the timeline? If you cannot answer my other questions, what right did you have to protect a distorted version of an article? Why did you not revert it to the version BEFORE the first edit and then protect? AND PLEASE suggest me a way to bring in all those reverts BACK into the article and then follow WP:DR if anyone wants to remove them.

Bobby

Please review WP:PROTECT#Content_disputes. The protection was applied to the page in the state it happened to be at the time - bias was not an issue. All protection was removed as soon as it was became apparent that the disruption had ended. All relevant revisions are stored in the page history and any appropriate content can be retrieved provided there is consensus to bring it back. Please note that with the exception of a couple of minor edits regarding the place name (India vs. India/Bangladesh/Pakistan), I have not been involved in editing content on this page. Ronnotel (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I OBJECT to the part of sentence that says content can be retrieved provided there is consensus to bring it back; BECAUSE it was NOT deleted after achieving THE SAME consensus which I presume is a requisite for deleting too. According to your method suggested, condition of CONSENSUS is unilateral on Wikipedia towards a certain class of editors. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm Paul and this is between y'all. You and the other contributors need to figure out - through consensus - what content gets added and what gets taken out. My job is to step in when policy is being violated and take action to protect the encyclopedia, such as protecting pages from edit warring. All protection has been removed and there's no reason why progress can't be made on reaching consensus. Ronnotel (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am still waiting for your response on:

Was it correct for the administrator to protect the page the way it was edited according to one side and vandalized according to other. And what you did when the Arbcom discarded your crusader friends' views? Did you revert to the version which existed before this edit war started? If not, WHY? Just because the only one asking for it was banned? (And that too by you only). Doesnt that give an inkling of the word PARTISAN?
Was it correct for the administrator to turn blind eye to bad conduct and utter disregard of WP:DR by one side and take action mechanically on other side? Almost 10 reverts by the twin pair in 2 days mean NOTHING according to your rule book? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV means no point of view, not my point of view. Regardless of whose point of view it is, mine or yours.

Was there also some question about the fact that demolitionman was in fact one of a series of Id's used by one individual; hardly an accident if that is the case. How can he not have known what he was doing, given he would have had to log on and of on to post as different users (why you would need, or want, to do this also springs to mind). The edits were by differnt people, not the same person using differnt accounts (pretending to be more then one person, why?), for whatever reason.[[Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I dont know how you came to this understanding. If you go through the edit history (mostly given above) for 30th October - 3rd November duration. Demolitionman was on one side and two particular people were on the other, taking turns. A couple of edits by both of these happened just a couple of hours on either side of the day; apart from this, they fitted perfectly well for 3 (but not 4) reverts for both of two days. And as far as I can see, I still have to find ANY other ID used by Demolitionman (or ANYONE) during those 2 days. There are indeed only THREE IDs in the entire series, of which two are still innocently pretending to be NPOV crusaders, thanks to the actions of a NEUTRAL & APPROPRIATE Administrator. One of the two has the dubious (alleged by me - all risks acceptable) distinction of not giving any citations/references, not even discussing anything, but just deleting NUMEROUS times in last one year, anything that supports him earn a goodwill with a certain POV. He has gone to the extent of quoting us by names on Linkedin to earn browny points in front of none other than Jimmy Wales himself (dont know if that worked though). See the page above for more. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be because you can no longer view Jvalant’s contributions. There are however 5 edites for 29 October by Delolitionman. There also seems to have been an abitrtation going on since the 24 October (as well as repeatd violations of the 3 RR rule). [[Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I apologise for my (or is it yours) selective amnesia. I should keep repeating what I say.

Read above, Arbcom threw out the case.

And as far as edits are concerned - on 27/28/29 October the total number of edits by the twin crusaders was 12. And I still have to see any argument/discussion before this was started, NOT BY DEMOLITIONMAN. And worse, the number of edits by them on 21/22 October was 8. This includes reverting edits done by totally unconcerned and unsuspected editors. I do not see those as works of sock puppets because Demolitionman was not visible on this site for those 2 days. So how do you justify that? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which 2 members do you refer too?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I have selective myopia too :) I cannot read some names properly. I just identify that the letters look same throughout. Is it the case with everyone here? --Bobby Awasthi / (talk) , 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.148 (talk)

Forgive me but I caanot find the manes of the two users in any of you posts here, could you I might be missing them i the mass of words, could you please re-post there links, thank you. [[Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]] I would recommend you go to the edit history for those 3 days and see yourself. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think he's referring to srs and me. And I can only recall one day where we both made 3 reverts; I think that was the day when demolitionman went on a rampage and made 5< though. We certainly weren't working together on that. I can actually recall a few occasions where Bobby and DM did this too.

And can anyone explain his first post? It looks like he's repeating demolition man's dying line of accusing me (and apparently adding SRS into it too) of setting him up... I'd recommend you calm down a bit, demolitionman got ultimatly banned for personal attacks like that. I'm not going to report you now but a mod could always drift by and notice your comments. --Josquius (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like Bobby to state who he actualy means so we can check, to avoid confusion.

iTS odd for Demolitionman to claim he was set up as he has a very long history of 3 RR violations (how often do you need to be warned before you start taking notice I wonder?). [[Slatersteven (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I dont recall a long history at least in last 2 years (please show me one) and neither am I claiming anything on behalf of him. I just believe I counted 12 reverts in 3 days from two names, against 8 from 1 name in the same duration; which is a statement NOT a personal attack. I do not heed to suggestions from the I THINK tribe of deletors/revertors, nor do I wish to respond to threats in garb of allegations of personal attack. I am openly challenging any volunteers, as the one above, to come back to CITATIONS/REFERENCES/SOURCES rather than rants. All the edits in the past by Josquius or Suresh Ramasubramanian (who is yet to make any typing effort, except delete OR revert button, on this article) are based on I THINK logic which is absolute disregard of basic rules of Wikipedia or for that matter any knowledge based database. But they garner support from some intelligent editors (like you, who at least refer to facts and sources sometimes) simply because their RANTS already exist in majority mindset and thats enough for them to assume they are correct. This is IMHO effortless POV pushing regardless of majority support, and regardless of whether they are right or wrong. Assume this to be a personal attack if you could prove the two names above have ever quoted/cited/referred to any book/site/event where we could have verified ANY of their edits for authenticity. there could have been ONE or TWO rare exceptions out of their dozens of reverts/edits. But still, no action on them? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well 12/2=6. Thats the amount someone can legally do in two days and you say it was over three. Perfectly OK to do 3 reverts in a day; 8 however isn't. And that isn't the attack I was referring to.

We didn't need sources at that time, we weren't adding anything drastic to the article, we were just trying to keep it at a NPOV. DM was the one who was trying to make a large point (the rebels were freedom fighters) and needed (and couldn't provide) sources to prove this.--Josquius (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear me. I didn't provide sources did I? Take your pick Google DemolitionMan (talk) 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Infact they are listed as freedom fighters on Wikipedia itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fighters_of_India#Rebellion_of_1857 DemolitionMan (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I have voluntarily agreed not to edit India-related articles for 3 months, my guess is this is going to be the next page on which you will want to correct to a "NPOV". DemolitionMan (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well here is the Sikh Prime Minister of India calling it the Indian Battle of Independence and the people involved freedom fighters.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/nic/pmiday.htm

1857 revolt is a tribute to Hindu-Muslim unity: PM —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: We didn't need sources at that time, we weren't adding anything drastic to the article I question your logic, crusader! For you, your queen's death may be DRASTIC, for an African or Indian child of 3 years age, its worth two hoots!.

Re:we were just trying to keep it at a NPOV. Wikipedia is not a certain Josquius Suresh LLC. that you can try to keep it NPOV-A-LA-JOS-SRS! If you do any edits, you are expected to EITHER discuss and arrive at consensus, OR provide citations/references from VERIFIABLE sources (which could still be objected to, if better sources provide a different scenario). You might see some of us doing it always here, which may work towards your further education on contributing to Wikipedia.

Re: DM was the one who was trying to make a large point (the rebels were freedom fighters) and needed (and couldn't provide) sources to prove this. I must ask you to forgive DM for not having personally invited YOU to Wikipedia, some 8 months back when the debate on these words was HOT and more than two dozen citations/references were provided from each side and it calmed down after the intervention of another admin, this time someone who also contributes on this page. The words STAYED then too, so I still have to find a logic whether DM was trying to make a big point by trying to let them remain, or YOU were trying to make a big point by disturbing the status quo by removing them without any change in circumstances whatsoever. All that DM has cited just a few minutes ago, is nothing but copy pastes of what we had cited then. Oh! and yeah, didnt your comrade in arms tell you this. He was definitely one party of conflict even in those days and then went silent, waiting for your arrival, fresh for another crusade. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Perfectly OK to do 3 reverts in a day; 8 however isn't. Just would like to inform you of the legality issue and how illegal you were/could be found if desired so. As per WP:DR, the standard process of dispute resolution is as follows: (I would turn

1 Step 1: Focus on content - You only deleted/reverted, WITHOUT ANY contribution. ALL your edits/reverts were DEVOID of ANY CITATION/REFERENCE/DISCUSSION-ON-TALK-PAGE. One one of the edit summaries, you kiddishly say, isnt there an act of parliament or something which could be cited. So WHO do you expect to work towards substantiating your RANTS/CLAIMS/EDITS?

2 Step 2: Is it urgent? - Was it THAT bad?

3 Step 3: Stay cool - Do not overreact, you can always come back after it cools down (like I am doing now)

4 Step 4: Discussing with the other party (You discussed here? Show me? I am doing that...)

5 Step 5': Truce (Try to arrive at an agreement, see the recent edits by others for a change)

6 Step 6: Turn to others for help (You jumped to FOURTH option on this SIXTH step without adhereing to ANY of the previous ones.

7 Last resort: Arbitration (You jumped to the SEVENTH AND LAST resort, just because a mediator said it was difficult for HIM, not for mediation ITSELF.)

I have only cited to you, the OFFICIAL WIKIPEDIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY with your adherence to it as visible to me. Do you really feel you should be talking about legality or PERFECTion? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please TRY and BE civil. THIS is rather ANNOYING and CHILDISH.
Once more no sources have been provided, all those state is that some people in India say they were freedom fighters, fair enough for inclusion within the main body of the article however not appropriate for the infobox which is meant for just hard facts. Surely you must realise how impossible the demand to produce sources to categorically state X isn't Y is? Hence the onus is on he who wishes to say it is rather then it isn't.
I was focussed on content, the article represented a very overtly right wing Indian POV which needed neutralising. Rather then adding a bunch of angry Victorian British opinions on the subject toning down the Indian views was the only option. On several occasions I make minor effects to begin to add to the article- these however were roundly reverted.
Discussion is what I tried to do...The majority of this talk page is filled up with it; it usually came down to DM wanting a debate about how evil the British were though and not about improving the article.
And wikipedia articles are not static, especially not ones which have yet to reach a high rating. Just because something was not changed 8 months ago does not make it sacred.
And which Queen are you ranting about? Beatrix? I really don't see how she is at all relevant to this issue...--Josquius (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know how to be civil, rather than using the garb of civility and getting involved in large scale deleting of BAD PATCHES of Indian past. My words are measured and within allowed limits. You need to read MORE than your opening sentence in Wikipedia policies section before trying to defame me by using that only one. As far as your statement goes that EVEN NOW no reference has been provided, NO EDITOR including a certain Bobby or DM or anyone is bound by any rule that every new comer has to be spoon fed AGAIN the entire list. There were 2 dozen or more such listed which were called NPOV by Indians but Indian POV by British editors, and there were another 2 dozen or more vice versa also. AND I AM REPEATING THIS n th time on this page. Why dont you go to the talk archives and edit history to find those out rather than trying to OUTSOURCE the job of giving you this information? In fact, you will find a lot of such references attached right at the bottom of the article itself, thanks to yours truly. Now, all depends on how interested you actually are, in reading History books about India instead of rewriting Indian history straightaway. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have read the relevant parts of the archive. And rewriting history is exactly what I'm trying to stop here; modern Indian revisionism can only go so far.
Looking back at the archives however I find much the same thing as on the current page, there are NO valid sources from your side on the issue. Its kept coming back to that "oh but the prime minister says they're freedom fighters!!!!1111". So by that logic if the British prime minister were to call the gurkhas superheroes that would make them so? Of course it wouldn't.
Looking back at the archives in fact the parallels with here are astonishing; the Indian nationalist POV only prevailed there as the other people simply couldn't be bothered to waste their life trying to deal with such a minor point on a wikipedia article.--Josquius (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to the British Prime Minister if he/she says so and that is anyways partially true considering the two recruitment camps existing in Nepal even currently for British Army recruitments. Britain does not have their own, maybe. But then, if Britain officially disagrees to the word Freedom Fighters, why do British sites like BBC (albeit in Hindi version) say so; and why does the British government not object to the 150th anniversary celebrations of First war of Independence in India for the year 2007? Or is it only the mindset objecting to it? If you cannot see the number of references, I am really sorry, it is your personal problem. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 15:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Because the British government doesn't care if the current government in India has decided to say that. It isn't in the buisness of telling people what to think. Their view with regards to 'freedom fighters' being a fact is irrelevant anyway, just like the view of the Indian government on the subject.
To go back to the example I used a few weeks back- the US government says Iraq has been liberated and Iraq is now a fully functioning democracy and the people are much better off. Do you automatically accept this as fact?
I can see everything which you call references. They are not valid references however, they are all cases of someone saying the rebels were freedom fighters, nothing which conclusivly proves that they actually were so.--Josquius (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a VALID REFERENCE according to your understand of Wikipedia? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even British government says what US government says. But I dont want to ape DM and call someone a lap-dog of someone else. How does Iraq of 2007 relate to this article of 1857? Was there any Iraqi army/soldier OR government participating? Is/Was land covered by the territory of current day Iraq part of any conflict during 1857? If the views of Indian government, views of people from parts of India that rebelled, media from these regions, scholarly texts in native languages of these regions are all irrelevant, then I presume all the editors on Wikipedia are irrelevant to their own existance too. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The British aren't quite so vocal about it but yeah Blair liked to say that a lot too. Would you really take everything he said as a valid source? Do you believe everything your local politicians say?
Valid references would be along the lines of contemporary quotes i.e. some British general going "Darn those Indian freedom fighters causing so much trouble" or one of the rebels going "We're freedom fighters!"
You are perfectly free to include the views of modern Indians within the article itself, it is a valid view point. It is not however a fact. If you were to treat it as such then you would have to treat the words and beliefs of the people of all nations as facts, just think how horrific that would be for distorting the truth in the case of North Korean history. Popular opinion does not write history. --Josquius (talk) 13:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont have to believe in what local politicians say. But I have no reasons for not believing in a collection of politicians, media, books in my own language, which give me a picture of my hometown some 150 years back. I have not been brainwashed in an exotic convent to start believing in only my english language book or newspaper for fulfilling political agenda of an imported ruling clan or communist networks. I have given references of clandestine press which came into light only after 1947 due to obvious reasons, and remained limited to Hindi language. Now, if you so insist, following your own logic, I would agree to the words "Mutinous soldiers" and retract from claiming it was TWFII, if you show me one British General calling them so, in any Native Indian Language (since it is Indian History). The point is, it is Indian History, more so, North Indian History, and English is not all-pervasive, all-decisive language to quote and stick to. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it had to be originally said in English. I'm certain we have a fair few Indians here who support NPOV so even if the source is still in hindi or whatever other language there could well be some way to decipher it.--Josquius (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it nor also part of British history? and indead Victorian history. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)]]

It is a part of British history indeed. That is not a carte blanche to view the series of incidents solely from the British perspective. Does Wikipedia list them as freedom fighters on other pages? Yes. Do the Indian people call them freedom fighters? Yes. According to Wikipedia policy, which thanks to Ronnotel I have been exposed to a lot lately, the people must be known by the most common name. The most common name being freedom fighters.

Can you provide proof of this? Provide sources. As you are asking for the rules to be obeyed then can they be obeyed with regards to the pages name please? By the way who posted this?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)]]

As usual I am providing some more SOURCES, which I am sure you would bypass to just keeping pushing your POV:

• Even though the rebellion had various causes (e.g. sepoy grievances, British high-handedness, the infamous Doctrine of Lapse etc.), most of the rebel sepoys set out to revive the old Moghul empire instead of heading home, which would have been reasonable if their revolt was only inspired by their grievances;
• There was a near-complete uprising on the part of the general public in many areass such as Awadh, Bundelkhand, Ruhailkhand. The character of the rebellion was therefore pan-regional.

The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over, as Tapti Roy reports: "Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka" - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and the law & order to the Sepoy Commandant). This objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from whole "India", as they knew it then, signifies a national sentiment; (Tapti Roy "The Politics of a Popular Uprising - Bundelkhand in 1857")

• The troops of the Bengal Native Infantry were used extensively in warfare and had therefore travelled extensively across Indian subcontinent. They had developed some notion of a nation-state called India and displayed in this mutiny (there were some others in previous years too) for the first time patriotic sentiments, as some contemporary British accounts e.g. Malleson suggest. ("The Indian Mutiny of 1875" by G.B. Malleson (Rupa & Co., Delhi, 2005) - This one, is one of your friends' favourite.
• It was in most cases the complete population including Hindus and Muslims in cities and villages of North-Central India. Their action may have been triggered by religious motives but it very soon turned out into a full-scale uprising against the British rule. So, a war of independence it surely was. If you are against calling it a war of Indian independence, how we should call it then - "War of Independence of Kanpur and Allahabad"? Does North-Central India belong to some another country? Did those people who revolted wished only to free their cities, villages or Bundelkhand, Rohailkhand, Awadh, Bihar and Malwa etc.? Of course they acted with an intention to drive out the British from the subcontinent. The extent of the feelings against the British can be gauged from the fact that even the armies of the Maharajas of Gwalior and Bharatpur mutinied and joined the rebels against the British, whereas they did not have to use the new cartridges. As a matter of fact the sepoys declared Bahadurshah Zafar not just emperor of Delhi or Roorkee but of whole India and revolts/mutinies broke out as far as Kolhapur in Maharashtra or north east (Nagaland). So the uprising clearly had a pan-regional character. And it was for the first time that any movement on the soil of the sub-continent took place with a "national" Indian agenda.
• Eric Stokes - The Peasant Armed: the Indian revolt of 1857 (Oxford University Press) 1986 - Did it say Peasant?
• Rudrangshu Mukherjee Awadh in Revolt: a study in popular resistance (Oxford University Press), 1984 - Did it say Popular?
• О Национально освободительном восстании 1857-1859гг в Индии (Москва) 1960 - On the National-Liberation uprising of 1857-9 in India - Karl Marx & Fredrick Angels - Originally as reported to New York Tribune!

Now go to sleep for a while, and then come back again and push your POV. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The mutinies were more about professional then religious, or even political, grievances Saul David, the Indian Mutiny, page 398 Inevitable, the breakdown of law and order meant that bands of Badmashes -‘bad characters’- attached themselves to the rebel forces in the hope of plunder. Ian Knight, Queen victories enemies (3), page 33 Bands of Muslim fanatics, including Arab and Afghan mercenaries. Michael Barthorp, The British army in the Indian mutiny, page 9 No total under arms, which is impossible to assess, Ibid. It is not a universally (and possibly not even majority held) held view that they were freedom fighters. As I have said there were many varied reasons why individuals joined the mutiny. It is as impossible to say how many revolted for a specific reason as it is to determine how many mutineers there were in total. [[Slatersteven 19:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)]]

It does not have to be a UNIVERSALLY held view to be INCLUDED on Wikipedia. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

True but it has to be UNIVERSALLY held view to be SOLEY INCLUDED, it has to be a MAJORITY view to be included on Wikipedia. Now the problom with the info box is that it cannot hold all opionions, so you should try (it seems to me) to go for terms that are neutral (or at least uncontestable, sorces permiting). By all means say that they are considerd freedom fighters in the main text of the article, but not in the info box,it seems to me that rebles more then nicley sums it up (one cant even say they wre anti-British rebles).[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]]