Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 7

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.

Guardian Link

Why was the Guardian link removed? Some dude thinks its conjecture - couldn't care less. Can someone put it back ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article (a very interesting one) discusses a book that is controversial but does provide an additional useful perspective on the mutiny. I say it should be put back.--RegentsPark (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Untill we can see (and thus judge the value) of the book this is (so far provided) the only source for this accusation. As such it should be present, but I feel that some kind of a caveat should be plced with it, making it clear that as this time no oone who edits this page has actualy read the book[[Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Sure, put in a caveat DemolitionMan (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The book has been released. It is available here.

http://www.easternbookcorporation.com/moreinfo.php?txt_searchstring=15251

The caveat can be removed now. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So can the link then, we can referance the book itslef.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)}}

I know. The facts stated in the subtitle below are from the book. I shall be adding them shortly :) DemolitionMan (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Book's been added to further reading DemolitionMan (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the blurb on that link. 1857 made the word safe for democracy? Prepared the way for decolonization? Made the world a safer place? British troops killed their own women and children? These claims are hilariousLed125 (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of Hindi Name

For those of us who are multi-lingual, it is very handy to know what the term for these series of events in Hindi is as well. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

the use the Hindi wikipedia, it serves no purpose as (as has been demontrated) there is a common name in English for the conflict (and if you can read English why do you need the name in hindi, you can read it in Egnlish? (on the ENGLISH language page)), and I again ask, does the Hindi page on the mutiny include the english translatio of the name for the brnifit of the multi-linqual (it did not the last rime I looked).[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)]]

As has been demonstrated, there is no common name for the series of events. Perhaps you are a little confused. Re-read the opening paragraph. You are welcome to add an English name on the Hindi Wikipedia. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we retain the Hindi title. The Hindi title is different (it is not a translation of the English title) and clearly reflects an important different perception of the entire event. There are numerous egregious claims and statements in this article but the inclusion of the hindi title is not one of them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, we're not retaining the title in Hindi. There are various ways of referring to it even in Hindi, and there are other languages besides Hindi which could have been used, like Bengali or Marathi, so introducing one phrase from one languagethose does not help. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan why do you keep bringing this up? As I wrote in Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 5#Stop the Britishization of this page:

DemolitionMan this is not a new subject and it has been thoroughly discussed before (see Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2#Aesthetics) -- but you should remember this as you joined in the conversation under you old handle.

For those who can read the foreign script it is hardly necessary to put in the translation and for the English readers who can not read the script there is no point putting it in, as any use of such a script would be merely an affectation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While you have been taking your three month enforced sabbatical from editing this page the edit warring over this issue stopped when the Hindi title was removed, so it would seem that you have very little support over this issue. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Too bad. What is your reasoning for suggesting that "it is hardly necessary to put in the translation" - it is an India related article and English and Hindi enjoy official status of the Federal Govt - while languages like Marathi and Bengali are official languages of different states but not of the Federal Govt. I am putting it right back. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't following this page in May of 2007 so I took a look at the Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2#Aesthetics page referred above and it doesn't seem to me that the issue was resolved. My suggestion is that we keep the Hindi name (which, btw, translates to 'the 1857 First War of Indian Independence' rather than the 'Indian rebellion of 1857'). Now whether this was a mutiny, a rebellion, or a war of independence is still being debated. In the aftermath of the event, it was always labeled a mutiny (though the few Indian sources that did write about it referred to it as 'danga' or rebellion). With the increase in the temporal distance, almost no one thinks that it was a simple mutiny and 'Rebellion' is an accepted alternative. More recent research into Indian sources, the Dalrymple book for example, has identified distinct characteristics of an independence movement within the event. Simple common sense tells us that all elements were probably present (a mutiny, a rebellion, and a quest for independence) during the events of that time. Since the name of the event is debatable, and there is clearly a different name used in India, I don't see why the Hindi name should not be at the top of the article. If it were the same, I'd say drop it. But it isn't and there is clear value in keeping it. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As "First War of Indian Independence" is included in the English list of names in the lead section why is there any need to include the Hindi version of the same name as well ? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Because, that way, wikipedia gives equal weight to the various mutiny terms along with the the term 'The First War of Independence'. If the objection is to the use of the devanagri script, I suggest that the first line be changed to read Indian Rebellion of 1857 (In India, the event is referred to as 1857: The First War of Indian Independence). --RegentsPark (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

RegentsPark, you are talking to a brick wall. The flag-waving Brits are going to continue downplaying logic to get over the diminishing status of their little island. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

So the acusation I made a long time ago that this is not a translation of the name, but is a differnt name altogether is true. This was and clealry is) an attpempt to insert a name that previous compromise had said should not be used as the 'true' title of this page. If you are wiulling to rename the page according to the single most common name in use, then yes I see no reason why we could then not have the Hindi name, but as the name of this page is a compromise, and that equal wieght is not given to all the names then no it should not be included [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Was the translation from Hindi misrepresented? That would be useful to know. I don't see much point in including a devnagri transcription that is exactly the same as the article title. No added value in that. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides, does the Hindi launguage Wikipedia give equal wieght to an english version of the anem?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

The point is that, while there are many competing English names for the event, the term 'First War of Independence' seems to be the predominantly acceptable one in India. I don't think wikipedia should ignore that. Giving equal credence to 'Sepoy Mutiny' and 'First War of Independence' is not reasonable. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What source is there to indicate that 'First War of Independence' seems to be the predominantly acceptable one in India (indead even the way you word it implies there is nothing to confirm this veiw then a conviction it is true). Moreover it does list the name as one of the varient titles, I just do not see why the ENGLISH language wikipedia needs to have tow exaamples of the saem phrse, one mascerading as a translatio when it is clearly not.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

The question I have for you is 'What is the purpose of articles in the English Language Wikipedia?" If the same event can be described in dramatically different terms in the Hindi language Wikipedia and the English Language Wikipedia then, I'm afraid, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather a region based POV thing. No, I think it is important to come to a consensus on the meaning of an event independent of issues tied to language. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was not fought in Hindi or in English, it was fought and we have to make sense of that fight.

Now, about the source. In India, history text books, newspaper articles all refer to the event as "The First War of Independence" - a simple google search on First War of Independence will adequately illustrate that.

Finally, this is a historical event whose interpretation is shifting. The first few years after the event, it was always called a mutiny and the reasons for that are clear (e.g., the exclusive reliance on British sources). With distance, the complex nature of the event is easier to observe. Whether it was a war of independence or a rebellion depends in part on how one defines things like nations and independence. Were the Rani of Jhansi and Nana Saheb seeking independence? Sure. Was Bakht Khan seeking independence, possibly. Were the mutinous sepoys seeking independence under the mughal emperor - who the heck knows? Were the villagers who drove Englishmen seeking refuge from Cawnpur seeking independence - only they know that but we can't ask them. The point is that the real meaning is lost in history and wikipedia can only present the dominant interpretations (note the plural), perhaps including short paragraphs (with appropriate caveats) on fringe views that are not totally incredible (for example, the mishra stuff). But, to completely ignore the importance of one dominant view and to dismiss that with a - let the Hindi guys do that is a disservice to the mission of this encyclopedia. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

But it is referanced, the question is not if it should be mentioned, by why twice, once in Hindi when once in English demonsrates (and to those who cannot read Hindi, thus reaching the those most likley to be using the english Language Wiki, those who speak English). Nor do I see how this adds to understanding the conflict.

It is also referd to as the Indian mutiny in just as many, another search on google will show that. moreover do all Indian history books and newpapers soley call it that, a quick search on google amply demostrates this is not the case (as the first anglo-sikh war demontrates). Do even a majority refer to it only as "The First War of Independence"?

It is not ignored, not only is the phrase listed, but the debate is coverd in some depth. Moreover is it the dominant view, no evidance has been forthcoming to demontrate this. [[Slatersteven (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

If I do a google search on "First War of Independence," the first page is almost entirely Indian articles on the mutiny/rebellion/war. If, however, I search on "Indian Mutiny," none of the articles listed in the first page are from Indian sources. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

However, on reflection, it seems that the discussion is straying into the naming of the conflict rather than the Hindi transliteration. I'm satisfied with the title the way it is written, it seems a very happy compromise between mutiny and war of independence, and am content to leave it at that. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I belive that was the compromise made some time ago. The reason the discusion strayed ois bcasue those who cannot read Hindi assumed (as it turns out very incorrectly) that it was a translation of the title of the page, not a varient title renderd in Hindi. This was (and remains) one oy my objections, it's confusing. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

DemolitionMan you wrote in the history of the article "Re-inserting Hindi name due to Wikipedia policy of lack of Common Name - hence most used Hindi title inserted - again.)" Please give the policy and section from which you draw this justification. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Folks, my suggestion is that we leave the Hindi name in for now and open a TIMED DISCUSSION on whether to keep it or not. Repeatedly reverting the addition or removal of the name is not helping anything (except adding to the level of anger). --RegentsPark (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be leave it out? Its been gone without any bother for quite some time.--Him and a dog 23:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Biased Source

As a combatant, I am inclined to take any assertions by British Army with a pinch of salt. However, since the Brits here are adamant that this dubious source is legitimate, I shall incorporate tales emanating from Indian sources who participated in the WoI of 1857 to give a more balanced perspective. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

For example - this from Begum Hazrat Mahal - the Queen of Oudh.

"At this time certain weak-minded, foolish people, have spread a report that the English have forgiven the faults and crimes of the people of Hindoostan. This appears very astonishing, for it is the unvarying custom of the English never to forgive a fault, be it great or small, so much so that if a small offence be committed through ignorance or negligence, they never forgive itŠ.. therefore we, the ever-abiding government, parents of the people of Oude, with great consideration, put forth the present proclamation, in order that the real object of the chief points may be exposed, and our subjects placed on their guard."

In the counter-proclamation, Begum Hazrat Mahal comes across as a secular person who was greatly troubled by the domination of any one religion over others. Her exiled husband Wajid Ali Shah was enriched as much by Hindu lore as by his own Shia creed to fortify Oudh with an enviably syncretic worldview. She rebuts Queen Victoria's assertions point by point, but the following one surpasses all. "In the proclamation it is written, that the Christian religion is true, but that no other creed will suffer oppression, and that the laws will be observed towards all. What has the administration of justice to do with the truth or falsehood of religion? That religion is true which acknowledges one God, and knows no other. Where there are three gods in a religion, neither Mussulman nor Hindoo- nay, not even Jews, Sun-worshippers, or Fire-worshippers can believe it true. To eat pigs and drink- to bite greased cartridges, and to mix pig's fat with flour and sweetmeats - to destroy Hindoo and Mussalman temples on pretence of making roads to build churches - to send clergymen into streets and alleys to preach the Christian religion - to institute English schools , and to pay a monthly stipend for learning the English sciences, while the places of worship of Hindoos and Mussalmans are to this day entirely neglected; with all this, how can the people believe that religion will not be interfered with? The rebellion began with religion, and, for it, millions of men have been killed. Let not our subjects be deceived; thousands were deprived of their religion in the North-West, and thousands were hanged rather than abandoned their religion." DemolitionMan (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

A fairly important take - I shall be incorporating it shortly unless there are objections punctuated by logic other than Union Jack waving. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that the British Army Museum is itself a biased source on a conflict 150 years ago. What is ruled out, however, is long quotations from primary sources under WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk) 12:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, considering the British Army was a part of the WoI in 1857 - doesn't it become a primary source and hence inadmissible under WP:PSTS?? And in WP:PSTS I don't see a statute of limitation - so the 150 years ago is irrelevant. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Something that happens to be from the British Army museum website is not a primary source on 1857. A quote from someone actually living through 1857 is. We freely quote from the American government on the American War of Independence, after all.

Not that it matters, but the British Army was not a participant in 1857. The Company military was. Relata refero (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Actualy Queens regiments were invloved, but that is not the point, the point is that primary sources are from those who actualy participated, and no British solder today (or indad any Briton) was alive at the time of the mutiny. I would sugest that Wikipedia rules are consulted as to what constitues a prmery source. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

Reading WP:PSTS includes no statements or examples that imply that there is not a statute of limitations either. But it seems to imply that it refers to actual participants in the events. NOw the rule seems rather vague on this point, as such I would sugest that we seek clarification.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)]]

And who will be providing clarification? DemolitionMan (talk) 04:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

W can aksk Wikipedia for a clarification?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Protection

I have protected the page in the face of a slow revert war. Please resolve these issues on the talk page. Ronnotel (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Ronnotel, your behaviour is a bit confusing and surprising. The changes are NOT adequate enough to call for a page protection by an Admin. More so you no longer appear to be a neutral party. Your involvement with an Rfc on a certain editor on this page, banning the same editor, calling him pro-hindu (which even if he was, does not make him untouchable on Wikipedia) and then page protection for an article which you did not bother to protect when its face changed considerably in three months time during which this editor was banned. Everything inserted by him or editors with simmilar information was repeatedly (and finally succesfully) removed by a set of editors appearing to be close to you personally as well. But you did not even come on board to make a single comment. Your behaviour is suspicious of a strong POV supporter and clearly unbecoming of an Admin. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Odd then that is was made in a way that kept in an edit made by demolition man, and not enforced after a re-edit of the saem[[Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

User:Ronnotel is (I think) following the wikipedia conventions set out in WP:EP and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary. Better to discuss each contentious issue on the talk page first, make a decision, and respect it (for a while anyway!). --RegentsPark (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy to unprotect as soon as there appears to be some effort at reaching a consensus. I have little doubt that unprotecting now would simply result in more edit warring. Please note that whatever version gets protected is always the WP:WRONG one.Ronnotel (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I was pointing out that certain contentions made by users as to bias are not supported by the actions of the accused. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

RfC / Ronnotel

Just to keep you abreast - after having tried reasoning with him multiple times, I have filed an RfC asking for suspension of Ronnotel's administrator privileges from desi-related articles for a period of 6 months which he can use to introspect and learn about different cultures and refrain from attacking other religions. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

NB. The above mentioned RfC has been closed as it failed certification per procedures. Those wishing to comment on my behavior are welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DemolitionMan. Ronnotel (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to include the hindi title (The 1857 First War of Indian Independence).

This section is for discussing whether the specific alternative hindi name on the page should be kept or discarded. The title is currently on the page and translates to The 1857 First War of Indian Independence. Please indicate whether you support or oppose the move and please state your reasons clearly, briefly, and with no name calling and invective! Thanks! --RegentsPark (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
(If possible, please limit your discussion to the keeping or discarding of the Hindi title. Thanks!)--RegentsPark (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

user:RegentsPark's proposal will result in the lead sentence looking: The Indian Rebellion of 1857 (Hindi: 1857 का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतन्त्रता संग्राम) was both a military mutiny and a rural civilian rebellion against the British East India Company. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 02:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Closing the survey

I think there's been enough discussion so let's end it, put the edit wars to rest, and move on - Waterboarding doesn't sound so bad after this :-). I'm summarizing the arguments below. Obviously not everyone will be happy with the outcome so I suggest reading the following pages:

Arguments

1. According to wikipedia policy, if there is no common name then it is acceptable to use the standard foreign name in the foreign script. Since there is no common English name the Hindi name should be provided. However, there seems to be little evidence that the Hindi name is the standard popular name, and there is some evidence provided that it is not the standard term used by Indian historians. There is some evidence below that the standard english names are 'rebellion', 'revolt', or 'uprising' which are reasonably synonymous with each other. Finally, though this is not in the discussion, see my interpretation of the WP:EN policy in the subsection marked 'Conclusion'.
2. Even if it were standard, what about other Indian languages? I'm not sure if this is a strong argument against the use of devanagri since Hindi is the official language of India. But, there is a strong case for Urdu - the official language of Pakistan and that of the Mughal Court.
3. Seems like a (weasly) way of getting around the neutral name of the article.
4. Use of Indic script would make it easier to navigate to the Hindi page for this. This is the one argument that makes sense because the Hindi page has this title. However, the listings in the language box on the left skin will accomplish the same thing.
5. Histories and academic publications almost never use the term 'First War of Independence'. A great deal of evidence was provided in support of this statement.

The vote

Oppose: 7 votes.
Support: 3 votes.

Conclusion

Even without the votes, I think the oppose arguments are stronger. The two support arguments are that there is a common name in Hindi but not in English; and that inclusion of the hindi text will make it easier to navigate to the Hindi wikipedia entry. For the first argument, there is simply not enough evidence provided. Also, my reading of of WP:EN is that the foreign script is useful when a foreign name is not easy to translate into English. That is not the case with 1857 का प्रथम भारतीय स्वतन्त्रता संग्राम. The second situation is easily and more appropriately handled by the left skin.

Hopefully all editors will respect this outcome. Anyone reading my comments in the earlier discussion will see that I had a weak preference for inclusion of the Hindi script, partly because that's what it was called in our history classes at school in Delhi. We used to needle our history teachers with stuff like "during the sepoy mutiny!" However, a casual search of the internet revealed that NCERT refers to the event as an 'Uprising' [1] so either my memory is faulty or history books have changed. In any case any reading of WP:EN suggests that a foreign script is useful only if it cannot be reasonably transliterated (Beijing/Peking is a good example). --RegentsPark (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

OUTCOME The Wikipedia:Consensus is that the use of the alternative Hindi title is not useful and not supported by WP policy.

WP Conventions relevant to this survey

Positions (please start with a Support, Oppose, or Neutral

Oppose Discarded. Pronto. The title of the page is not a Hindi word (or phrase). In other words, why have we bestowed this honor on Hindi and not any of the other twenty odd major regional languages of India? If the reason offered is that Hindi is the official language of the Indian union, then are we going to provide the Hindi script for all Indian history pages? How about the Vedic Period or Indus Valley Civilization, or Iron Age India, or Kushan Empire, or Maurya Empire? Better yet, (for the proponents of Hindi) why not try adding the Hindi script to the Vijayanagara Empire page, and watch your behinds get whupped. This is really not an issue of any importance. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PS I just realized that the topic under discussion is whether to include the translation of the old nationalistic (and now retro) name, "First war of independence." Even the Marxist historians stopped using that name in the 1990s. Even high schools kids in India don't use that phrase any more. Give me a few minutes and I'll produce some evidence. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

PPS. Go to this website of the new textbooks used in Indian high schools put out by India's Ministry of Education: National Council of Educational Research and Training Textbooks. Once there, select "Class XII (new)" and "History" and "Themes in Indian History." This will take you to a table of contents. Scroll down to Part III and read, "Theme Eleven: REBELS AND THE Raj: 1857 Revolt and its Representations." Interestingly, the Hindi version of the same book, has the same Theme eleven and it is translated as the "Andolan" of 1857. "Andolan" is the Hindi word for a protest movement. There is no mention of any war of independence there. Pretty shameful that if the school kids are up-to-date in their historiography, Wikipedia is still clinging to archaic nationalistic jargon. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC) updated Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

PPPS. Here is a list of forty References for Early Modern India, British Raj, and Indian Independence Movement. The list consists of some of the best known authors in the field, many of them Indian. Not a single author uses, "First War of Independence." Not even R. C. Majumdar et al in their Advanced History of India, which, from the 1940s to the 1970s, was a staple of Indian history courses (in India) at the college level; they just call it the "Revolt of 1857-59." Neither do Encyclopaedia Britannica (which calls it the "Great Mutiny and Revolt of 1857-59") and Encarta (which sticks to "Sepoy Rebellion." I don't know who is holding this page up, but she/he is not a historian. This page has much bigger problems to worry about. For one, it is too long; it needs to be trimmed at least by a third. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 03:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support - According to wikipedia policy - if there is no common name for an event, it's native title must be used in the original language. Maharashtra State textbooks call it the War of Independence. NCERT textbooks usually reflect the prevalent view of the Govt. in question and hence are quite useless.

Historians in the 1940s - 1970s and even 1980s were schooled in the British train of thought and as such their views have been molded based on how the colonists interpreted these series of events. This is 2008; it is time to smell the coffee and get away the demise of the British Raj or British Reich. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan (talk) 04:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The mutiny was not fought in Maharashtra or in Bengal. Those regions had both famously caved in long before it began. It was fought in Oudh and upper Central India, i.e. present-day Western and Central UP and northern Madhya Pradesh. In the language of the region, Hindustani (Hindi and Urdu), the name for the event was "Ghadar" which translates as "Rebellion," or "Revolt." (Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact check out the Wikipedia page Ghadar. So, if you really want a "native" name, one familiar to the contemporaneous Indian combatants of the mutiny, it would be "Ghadar," written in the Perso-Arabic script, since that was the native script used throughout the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh. I am happy to provide that if there is consensus for it. It most certainly is not the discombobulated Hindi that had been presented in some previous versions of the page. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again Fowler beats the drums of the ridiculous British POV - since the WoI was not limited to merely North Central India as has been repeatedly pointed out - and the WOI was fought on a pan-India basis - it wouldn't surprise me if "Ghadar" emerged just after the WoI to appease the British. As it stands, Hindi is the official language of the Govt. of India (along with English) and also the most commonly spoken language in India - hence of course it should gain precedence. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? Relata refero (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DemolitionMan (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're the one who want to add it, you have to make the arguments. Relata refero (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you're the one who wants to delete it, you have to make the arguments. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was never there. Also, the onus is on those adding material to justify their inclusion. Relata refero (talk) 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was always there. The onus for deleting material to justify its exclusion is on you. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment DemolitionMan You reason given for inclusion is "According to wikipedia policy - if there is no common name for an event, it's native title must be used in the original language." Which section in which policy do you think supports this assertion. Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose The Hindi name is not the translation of the phrase "Indian Rebellion of 1857", the name used for Hindi, "First war of independence" is not used. Plus it is not right to single out Hindi out of the major languages in India. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This is not a new subject and it has been thoroughly discussed before (see Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2#Aesthetics) and #Purpose of Hindi Name. Not all browsers have all scripts and if not the foreign script displays as BLOCKS and looks ugly. For those who can read the foreign script it is hardly necessary to put in the translation and for the English readers who can not read the script there is no point putting it in, as any use of such a script would be merely an affectation. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose This is English Wikipedia. If you include the Hindi name, then you have to add the French, German, Spanish, Urdu, Arabic, Chinese etc... Rockybiggs (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a lot of sockpuppets are being used - who the hell is rockybiggs? Isn't this his/her first comment ever on this article? DemolitionMan (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you answer user:Philip Baird Shearer's question instead of conjecturing—just as you find your beloved name-change slipping out of reach again—who is a sockpuppet? Here is the question again: "DemolitionMan You reason given for inclusion is "According to wikipedia policy - if there is no common name for an event, it's native title must be used in the original language." Which section in which policy do you think supports this assertion?" As for user:Rockybiggs, he is someone who is interested in the British Empire and has been a regular participant on Empire-related pages. Please withdraw your comments before someone takes you to the cleaners for them. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 18:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Common does not mean only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How will we decided when this dispute is resolved?[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

I am a relatively new wikipedia editor, but I thought votes usually have a reasonable time frame associated with them, such as say 3 weeks. Desione (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Support. Please note that the phrase that is commonly used by many non-Indian authors is "Sepoy Mutiny" where the first word ("Sepoy") is a Hindi/Urdu word written using English alphabets. The point being that Hindi is inherent in some of the "english" names given to describe these events. So as a compromise, I would suggest the following and hopefully no one will jump out of their seats: 1) rename the title to "Indian Revolt of 1857" as opposed to "Indian Rebellion of 1857" - this title as far as I can see appears more neutral may be more palatable to both Indian and British sentiments here, 2) Modify the sentence "First War of Indian Independence, Indian Mutiny, Sepoy Mutiny, or Sepoy Rebellion" to "First War of Indian Independence (... hindi translation...), Indian Mutiny (... hindi translation...), Sepoy Mutiny (... hindi translation...), or Sepoy Rebellion (... hindi translation...)" We don't need to include "French, German, etc..." translation because they were not involved. In my opinion such minor issues can easily be settled through compromises (not necessarily using the one that I am suggesting). My apologies if I am offending anyone. Thank you Desione (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that changing the word from rebelion to revolt makes any differance, It seems a change for the sake of it, moreover th current title of the page was a compromise for the reasons you state. It did not work then and it will not work now. Sikhs were invloved, so should they not have their translations in place too, and what about Nepalese, they are an independant state and it's the majority language in their country, and they were involved. I for oe do not see a need to change the title. Why should Hindi be given a special status that no oterh regional language is give (and we shall ingnore the issue of Gallic). [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

I agree with you when you say "It did not work then and it will not work now." The problem is compounded by the fact that there is "no set" title for this event either in British publications or in Indian publications. As far as I can see the classical titles are "Sepoy Mutiny" on the British side and "First war of Independence" on the Indian side. After that there are all sorts of corruptions in the middle. My understanding is that most people here (either British or Indian) will agree with this. Desione (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So given that there is no compromise, is there a "practical, real world" solution that can be applied for this article. Thank you. Desione (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick search will tell you that Indian Mutiny is in more common usage[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Strong oppose. It's a bit of a weasel word to get around the neutral name used for the article. If you had to use hindi (though of course we shouldn't) then most appropriate would be a more neutral name (they certainly exist, as has already been covered not all Indians call this a war of independence).
Also this is not an article about a place or a person with a name actually written in hindi, its not a real, physical 'thing' if you get my meaning. It doesn't need a foreign name used, just the English one(s). Look at for instance the Franco-Prussian War, it doesn't feel the need to use the French or German names.--Him and a dog 23:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Why Hindi? A more appropriate term would be in Urdu, or in Persian. Also, the Bengal army revolted: why not Bengali? And Sikhs fought - although on the 'wrong' side - so why not Punjabi? And if we're quoting the Govt of India's official releases, why not one of the other dozen-odd official languages in India? Please. This is a ridiculous suggestion. Relata refero (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant Support. While I am aware this page has been a battleground for PoVs, it is neccessary to remember that wikipedia os not the international historical conference where we decide what is the correct name for something. If some event is refferred to commonly by a certain name, then I think that satisfies the wikipedia guidelines on including the native name, eg Great Patriotic War is a term used often enough that people know what it means, as a quick google search will indicate that "Fisr war of independence" is indeed in common parlance. I am not sure whether the protagonists downstairs are trying to prove who is cleverer than the other, but both are wasting time since it seems quite obvious that the term is indeed used by quite afew. As for why Hindi, it is the national language or something, I remember Fowler made an argument in the Talk:India page to prove that Hindi has precedence over other official languages, I am sure he will know when it was made and can fish it up. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 13:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs)

Reply to user:Rueben lys: "First War of Independence" is mentioned in the lead, along with a handful of other names. No one is trying to exclude it. However, the title of this page has to reflect consensus among reliable sources (not folk usage in India or anywhere else). You can't change the name of the "Second World War" page to "Great Patriotic War," just because it is known in Russia by that name. Also, since the "Great Patriotic War" is a subset of "World War II" it is OK to have a short (dab/explanatory) page for it. However, since "First war of Independence" is exactly the same as "Indian rebellion of 1857" Wikipedia rules will not allow a POV fork with name, "First war of independence." I'm sure it has already been tried before. As for Hindi, yes, it is the "Official language of the Indian Union." And, yes, it has precedence in an infobox (which is what that debate was about). But, since when did we begin to add vernacular scripts in the lead sentences of history articles. (I have already given examples of Vedic culture, Indus Valley Civilization etc. above.) You are a rational person, Rueben lys, and I respect you for your rationality. For that reason, I am surprised by your argument here. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A quick search will tell you that Indian Mutiny is in more common usage. Moreover the name is included in the opening paragraph, it is not it's presence that is the issue but why it has to be repeated in Hindi, given that any one visiting this oage will be an English speaker. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

With regards to both Fowler and Slater, I may have got this wrong, but I thought this debate was on wether to include indic script for the 1857 war of independence in the lead, pardon me if I got this wrong. What I am saying is such a script would probably improve the article, and also help the users look up alternate language articles, both in wikipedia and outside. Speaking from experience, you'd be surprised how many people visit the english wikipedia because it comes up at the top, or is the most accessible. The point is wikipedia should help a layperson direct his search/research, you know as well as I do that it will never be a primary or even secondary reference. So the best you can do is try to be as comprehensive as possible. See for example, Chinese new Year uses Han characters, Arabia or islam related article have Persian script, etc etc, you get the idea. So my point is, if this is debate is about adding a short indic script to say "1857 war of independence", then I think at some level that is acceptable, as long the rest of the article is not turned into a battleground. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 15:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueben lys (talk • contribs)

We were replying to your post. I fail to see how including the Hindi script would improve the article, given that in order to even read the page you need to be able to read English in the first place. Also you can include links in the article (that is what I was led to believe the links section is for) to non-English pages (though it is difficult to see hoe non-Hindi speakers will be able to read Hindi pages). Moreover if the argument goes that users need to be able to read alternative language articles (assuming they are able to read the language) then should not all of the languages that were involved in the conflict be represented, why only a Hindi translation (much like the Chinese new yea page, which lists al the translations (even though my browser does not support them, so they cant be displayed)? The pages you refer to include the native language translations of the title, not an alternative title (except were there are more then one native name of the festival. You are asking for an alternative (not translation) title to be used. [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

rueben_lys, for navigation to other articles, are not the listings in the language box (on the left with the standard skin) a better way to navigate to other languages than one string of characters that my or may not display correctly in the first line of the page? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 06:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

display will be just fine :-) ,since the Character encoding of wikipedia pages is UTF-8. Desione (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

User:rueben_lys: I still don't understand where Hindi comes in. The rebellion was a rebellion in British India (or rather a region on the cusp of becoming the British Raj), whose successor states are India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Even if I were to agree that official language scripts make sense, how did we get to only picking Hindi and not Urdu (official language of Pakistan) and Bengali (official language of Bangladesh)? On the other hand, if we are talking about the contemporaneous vernacular name for the uprising, it was simply Ghadar (literally, "rebellion," "revolt," or "uprising"). Since the lingua franca of the Awadh region, where the uprising took place, was Hindustani written in the Perso-Arabic/Urdu script, if we had to include a vernacular name, it would be Ghadar written in Perso-Arabic. (Standard Hindi, with its Sanskrit loan-words, which is the official language of India, wasn't developed until the second half of the 19th century.) As for the name, "First war of independence," no one ever heard of it until the Hindu nationalist V. D. Savarkar published his Indian War of Independence in 1909. Later, the idea that the rebellion was an early manifestation of nationalism briefly found truck with some Indian historians (notably S. B. Chaudhury, and some Marxists), but that time has long gone. As I have already indicated above, for the last two years, all high-school students in India have been using the term "Indian revolt of 1857" (in both English and Hindi) in the new NCERT textbooks put out by the Ministry of Education. It may be that the Government leaders, felt the need to use the term "First war of independence," in the official ceremonies marking the 150 anniversary of the rebellion in 2007, but their own Ministry of Education and the experts that advise it have taken a different tack. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Results from official Government of India website

search term: +"1857" +revolt site:nic.in , that is 9 references for "revolt"
search term: +"1857" +rebellion site:nic.in , 2 references for "rebellion"
search term: +"1857" +"first war of independence" site:nic.in , 26 references for "first war of independence"

Official GOI press release regarding celebration of 150th anniversary of "First War of Independence": [2].

The point being: as far as Indians are concerned this event is OFFICIALLY and POPULARLY known as "First War of Independence". So I suggest you start addressing this constructively in a manner that would lead to a real solution. The views of historians is not relevent here since the event has official and popular recognition as "First War of Independence". Thank you. Desione (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The title has been fixed at this position for some time, following long arguments that used some of the information you present above. I don't think that any attempt to move it is either likely to succeed or a constructive use of anyone's time. Move on. Relata refero (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

This is justified by the following principle: The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."

Since most people who speak English know it as the "First War of Indian Independence" - based on Wikipedia policy - this should be name. Of course, British users here are convinced that white people who speak English count more than brown do - so I guess the apartheid will continue. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be quite a effort from some to turn this into a case of 'sides'; a Indian one and a British one. This of course is not constructive for editing the article (as we can all see) and totally ignores the historical facts. I'm glad to see more educated Indians coming in here with some solid facts on this war of independance thing. This has been done to death and leaving it as a rebellion (or revolt or whatever) is the way to go, that some Indians rebelled is a perfectly neutral fact and says nothing about their intentions or their conduct.

DM: How on earth do you know the British users here are white? That's jumping to rather racist assumptions a bit. I don't think any of them have photos on their user page, they could be Mongolian ethnically for all we know. Such a thing really isn't important though so I don't really care enough to ask them.

As for most English speakers calling this WOI- how on earth do you figure this? Far more call it some variation on rebellion of sepoys and/or Indians--Him and a dog 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right. So which of the British posters posting here is not Caucasian? DemolitionMan (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This has reached trolling level now. I suggest you read this outline and consider how to alter your behaviour. I might be green for all you care, you deal with my arguments regardless. Racism is out of place here.

And as for your puerile little "no British degrees allowed", well, bollocks. Go and change policy on that first. Relata refero (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the ridiculous assertion can be set that "History PhDs" are a must - then bollocks to that too. Two can play the game. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

When we're discussing academic sources having a PhD is pretty much a given. Having written something of the calibre to be a serious, mainstream academic source is exactly how you earn a PhD...--Him and a dog 19:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

http://india.gov.in/ (the official site for the Indian govenment) does bot have a search function that I can find. Can a link therefore be provided to whatever site the searches

search term: +"1857" +revolt site:nic.in , that is 9 references for "revolt"
search term: +"1857" +rebellion site:nic.in , 2 references for "rebellion"
search term: +"1857" +"first war of independence" site:nic.in , 26 references for "first war of independe

came from. I fail, to see why the race of a poster makes their views any less relevetn, I would ask that this aspevt of the thread in ended now.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

My apologies for not providing links earlier. Please refer to the following google searches for views of government of india and that of international media.

Government of India Press Information Bureau

"1857 rebellion" -- count: 1 -- [3]
"rebellion of 1857" -- count: 1 -- [4]
"1857 revolt" -- count: 4 -- [5]
"revolt of 1857" -- count: 5 -- [6]
"first war of independence" -- count: 49 -- [7]

Conclusion: commonly accepted title in government of India press releases is "first war of independence"

All Government of India websites

"rebellion of 1857" -- count: 10 [8]
"1857 rebellion" -- count: 11 [9]
"1857 revolt" -- count: 27 [10]
"revolt of 1857" -- count: 133 [11]
"first war of independence" -- count: 171 [12]

Conclusion: commonly accepted title in all of government of India is "first war of independence"

Google news which indexes 4,500 "international" news sources

"1857 rebellion" -- count: 67 [13]
"rebellion of 1857" -- count: 108 [14]
"1857 revolt" -- count: 141 [15]
"revolt of 1857" -- count: 186 -- [16]
+india +"first war of independence" -- count: 502 [17]

Conclusion: commonly accepted title in international media is "first war of independence"

For those who are interested, it should be possible to modify the search phrase in google after you click on the link. Thank you Desione (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not quite.

+india +"mutiny of 1857" -- count: 488 [18]
+india + "1857 mutiny" -- count: 157 [19]

Conclusion: more commonly accepted title in international media is "Mutiny of 1857/1857 Mutiny" with a total of 645 returns' Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Even better:

+india + "sepoy mutiny" -- count: 499 [20]
+india + "sepoy rebellion" -- count: 221 [21]

Conclusion: even more commonly accepted title in international media is "Sepoy Mutiny/Rebellion" with a total of 720 returns' Fowler&fowler «Talk» 04:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is still Indian History that we are talking about, so the official and popular views in India need to be resolved. Also, I see that you have left the Hindi name there and I have included disambiguation in parentheses next to "First war of Independence" Desione (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No DemolitionMan (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, to keep things clear for the "international media part - here are the results in increasing order of counts:

"1857 rebellion" -- count: 67 [22]
"rebellion of 1857" -- count: 108 [23]
"1857 revolt" -- count: 141 [24]
"revolt of 1857" -- count: 186 -- [25]
+india + "sepoy rebellion" -- count: 221 [26]
+india +"mutiny of 1857" -- count: 488 [27]
+india + "sepoy mutiny" -- count: 499 -- [28]
+india +"first war of independence" -- count: 502 [29]

I don't really understand your ("sepoy rebellion" + "sepoy mutiny" = 720) calculation, since that is not the math that I am used to seeing, but since weekend has (almost) ended, I will let this go for now in the spirit of compromise. Thank you. Desione (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, you forgot "Indian Mutiny": 2400 results.

By the way, the official stance of Government is a lame argument. By your logic, all Wikipedia maps depicting Kashmir should show the disputed territory as part of India, because the Government of India considers it a part of India.

I'd recommend creating an article titled First War of Indian Independence (term), similar to Great Patriotic War (term). This article is best titled with uprising or rebellion in the title. utcursch | talk 11:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kashmir argument is a lame analogy. Kashmir is disputed because Pakistan disputes it. The British Government has never disputed the official Indian title. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

:) That's funny that "Indian mutiny" turns up 2400! Short and snappy is best. Especially in newspapers. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

A lot of those war of independance ones aren't actually dealing with this rebellion though if you browse through some of them.--128.240.229.65 (talk) 11:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first article, from the NYT (1962) is about the India-China war. BBC and Guardian qualify it with "what in India is called" and the Hindu article is titled "First War of Independence?" Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Call a spade a spade.

Political Correctness is not my strong suit. Not that I need to mention it here. And even though I am constantly castigated for bringing this up; I'll say what everyone here has obviously noticed. The voting pattern here is clearly divided on the basis of nationality and yes, race. Bringing it up again is not necessarily a nice thing - but the fact remains that most Indians posting here with the exception of SRS are quite convinced that the Hindi title is appropriate and that most Indians see it as a War of Independence. On the opposite side the majority of the people sticking to the mutiny line are British, except Ronnotel who I think is American and even though he has not edited this article he has made it known where his sympathies lie. There is an obvious cultural disconnect here. It boils down to a simple thing - the British posters see their erstwhile Empire as a force of good and the Indians see it as nothing but economic exploitation. I've often compared the British Raj to the Nazi Regime and while on the surface this comes across as far-fetched and ridiculous - there are many reasons why this would be a good comparison. Of course, the British would be appalled considering how strenuously they fought the Nazis and how many hardships that country went through to win that war. History is written by victors - but in the case of the Indian Independence Movement, there was no clear cut victor. The Indians ended the British Raj with non-violence - which is to say, the British just got up and left knowing they can't manage a people hell-bent on not co-operating. There was no treaty of surrender as such. Even though India won its independence, neither side lost face - which I guess is a good thing. But Indians will always look at the British Raj with jaundiced eyes - famines, massacres, economic exploitation. The British will always look at India as the lasting legacy of their colonialism - everything they believe the Empire stood for - democracy, progress, interconnectivity by Railways - the works. Is either side wrong? I guess not. How is this relevant to this article? Well, based on the way we are brought up and the history we learn, even tales we hear from our elders shape our world view. I guess I can see why the British think that WoI is a ridiculous Indian assertion in a day and age when political correctness is the norm and castigating the Empire is fashionable. After all, weren't these people soldiers in the East India Company who mutinied? Hence, they are mutineers - nothing more, nothing less. I don't see the British empathizing with the Indian view - what the hell was the British East India company doing in India in the first place? Surely, the soldiers rebelled against an occupying foreign power who had no right to be here and many civilians joined them. Hence, it was a true WoI, nothing more, nothing less. As much as I would like it to - this chasm will never be bridged. We can continue going around in circles and keep abusing and insulting each other - but these views on either side will not change. After all, one side is doubting the heritage and legacy of the other. Both view themselves as the good guys. There is no villain as such here. That is the problem. And try as we might, we are not going to have a consensus. DemolitionMan (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problem in discussing race issues. Desione (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but if you insist on marking people down by race then I insist on being listed as WP:Wikipedian. Ronnotel (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

~~You can muse and mope all you want,~~ The problem has nothing to do with British vs. Indian. As I have already indicated above, modern scholarship on early modern India is international, not just Indian and British. ~~In that sense, for a young man (which is what I think you are), you sound strangely antiquated. Anyway,~~ I am copying here a reply I posted above:

The rebellion was a rebellion in British India (or rather a region on the cusp of becoming the British Raj), whose successor states are India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Even if I were to agree that official language scripts make sense, how did we get to only picking Hindi and not Urdu (official language of Pakistan) and Bengali (official language of Bangladesh)? On the other hand, if we are talking about the contemporaneous vernacular name for the uprising, it was simply Ghadar (literally, "rebellion," "revolt," or "uprising"). Since the lingua franca of the Awadh region, where the uprising took place, was Hindustani written in the Perso-Arabic/Urdu script, if we had to include a vernacular name, it would be Ghadar written in Perso-Arabic. (Standard Hindi, with its Sanskrit loan-words, which is the official language of India, wasn't developed until the second half of the 19th century.) As for the name, "First war of independence," no one ever heard of it until the Hindu nationalist V. D. Savarkar published his Indian War of Independence in 1909. Later, the idea that the rebellion was an early manifestation of nationalism briefly found truck with some Indian historians (notably S. B. Chaudhury, and some Marxists), but that time has long gone. As I have already indicated above, for the last two years, all high-school students in India have been using the term "Indian revolt of 1857" (in both English and Hindi) in the new NCERT textbooks put out by the Ministry of Education. It may be that the Government leaders, felt the need to use the term "First war of independence," in the official ceremonies marking the 150 anniversary of the rebellion in 2007, but their own Ministry of Education and the experts that advise it have taken a different tack. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PS I also checked with a friend in India who said that the common Hindi term is San Sattavan Ki Gadar (Rebellion of '57), not your formal rendering ~~the formal words you are trying to force on this page, which he found amusing, saying that they were "the stuff of political speechifying and earnest schoolboy essays."~~ Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

PPS And here is a quote from Stanley Wolpert, who is neither British nor Indian, but rather American, (i.e. from a country that had its own British colonial experience and that supported India's freedom movement in the first half of the 20th century), and who in his latest book, Shameful flight: The Last Years of the British Empire in India lays the blame of the humanitarian disaster of the partition squarely on British shoulders

“

(Wolpert on the Rebellion of 1857) It was the fiercest, bloodiest war ever fought on Indian soil, the last desperate struggle of many an ancien regime, united by their fears and their hatred of the foreigner, whose Western Raj had become too powerful to destroy. It was far more than a mutiny, the name that British pride has always preferred, yet much less than a first war of independence, as some Indian nationalists like to call it. It proved to be the final convulsive death gasp not only of the Mughal Empire, independent Oudh, and the Peshwai, but of the Honourable Company's rule in India, which had lasted precisely one century after Plassey. (From, Wolpert, S. 2000. A New History of India. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, Chapter 15.)

”

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 21:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you stop trying to belittle people here using phrases such as "can muse and mope all you want" and "for a young man (which is what I think you are), you sound strangely antiquated." is that alright with you "you old man"?

I will check with someone from "awadh." for translation of "Gadar" Thank you. Desione (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop putting words in someone mouth without giving them entire context and your role in it. Desione (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Rest later Desione (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I have scratched my inappropriate asides. My apologies to DemolitonMan and you. Regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford Hindi-English Dictionary (ed. R. S. McGregor) 2003, translates "gadar" as: (from Arabic gadr) rebellion, revolt, disturbance. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 22:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Amaresh Mishra

On what basis is he not a "reliable source"? Is it the color of his skin? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because he's a film critic and not a historian. Relata refero (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

And what makes you the authority to downplay his "historian" credentials? DemolitionMan (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS and WP:V. He has no "historian credentials". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So how is the British Army a "historian" or various journalists whose work has been included? We can put in a caveat that he is not a bona fide historian if you so wish. But fact remains that he has unearthed some facts which have neither been disputed nor refuted. DemolitionMan (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The museum website is reliable. We aren't quoting a random infantryman. The facts have indeed been widely disputed, and thus we cant rely on him for a wide section of details. A line indicating he has published a book claiming that there were incidents elsewhere in India is sufficient. Relata refero (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

REF: On what basis is he not a "reliable source"? Is it the color of his skin? DemolitionMan (talk) 15:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No, because he's a film critic and not a historian. Relata refero (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO! Joke of the century! Amresh Mishra is NOT a reliable source because he is a film critic AND BROWN/BLACK. Saul David - The God currently ruling the main article page with extensive citations to his ONLY WORK on anything Asian, IS INDEED a reliable source even if he is a BBC commentator AND WHITE. HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO! Hypocrisy NPOV Style a la Wikipedia! Hail Queen! --213.42.21.53 (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere in there is a valid point that Saul David is not a scholarly source and overused in this article. Relata refero (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So how does the British Army have credentials of a historian in this case or the likes of Mr. Saul David. Most of the sources used in this article are not historians. We can put in a caveat about his credentials or lack there of but his work has been published and reviewed and thus he can be classified as WP:RS - I suggest you read WP:RS again. DemolitionMan (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone is really neutral, it should be reflected in arguments for removal of both Amresh Mishra & Saul David. A mere recognition of the fact that Saul David is also overused when pointed out, does not prove that you are neutral enough. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul David is not making particularly unusual claims. See WP:REDFLAG. Relata refero (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Saul David is visiting profesor millitary history at the university of HUll, as such he is a recognised accademic i the firld of millitary history. His PHD thesis was on the Indian mutiny, and as such is a recognised source according to Wikipeias policys. does Amresh Mishra have this level of accademic acreditation?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)]]

The British Military? The guys who are yet to apologize for murdering women and children in Amritsar? As stated, degrees acquired in the UK hold no merit in this discussion. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So I take it this he has no accadenic accredtation. I would also request that you refrain from racist comments like the one you have just made. Wikipedia does not have a policy of refusing to recognise degress aquired from UK universities, as such they are permisable in this discusion, or indead any univrsities based soley on their nationality. [[Slatersteven (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)]]

I do not know what "accadenic" is. I take it you mean academic. I also see no PhD prerequisite. However, if the British POV pushers are not going to recognize genuine Indian historians based on them not having a PhD, why should the Indian posters accept British historians whose education is from biased British ones? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because the majority of contemporary British sources are biased in an anti-empire direction? --128.240.229.65 (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we need some yard stick to judge if a source is indeed a well researched work?. Besides it's not just a question of having a PHD, are they university lecturers? Have they won awards for their historical works? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)]]

Ronnotel

Seeing that he has failed in his flawed RfC - this fine upstanding gentleman has now posted [[30]] on the Wikipedia Admin noticeboard.

I've responded in kind. [[31]] Feel free to run amok there too. Ronnotel will not stop till he puts the native in his place. DemolitionMan (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

'An eye for an eye makes the world blind'--128.240.229.65 (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion, Revolt, Revolution: What's the difference

I wouldn't categorize the 1857 revolt as either successful or a failure since it did lead to removal of east-india rule (success), but not the removal of British rule in general (failure). So keeping this mind, are there any comments on the following distinctions:

A revolt is any conflict in which a group fights against an authority. If its participants fail in defeating the authority, the name of the revolt becomes "rebellion," and its participants are called "rebels," as in Shays' Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. If the revolt succeeds, it can be called a "revolution," and its participants are "revolutionaries," as in the American Revolution and French Revolution. During the middle of the revolt, when it is not clear who will win or lose, the conflict remains called a "revolt," (or, specially by the authority, a "rebellion") and sometimes this name sticks even after the conflict has subsided, regardless of who loses or wins. [32]
A revolution is what they call it when they win and a rebellion is what they call it when they lose. [33]

This source is not very accurate. Often answers.com is just recycled Wikipedia stuff; in any case, it is wrong about revolt becoming a rebellion if it is unsuccessful. Please see the definitions below. Also, a "Military rebellion" is not a mutiny, but rather a coup by the military (against a civilian government) to grab power. Please see Google Search Page on "Military Rebellion". Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always gone by the 'A revolutionary is a succesful rebel' thing. But I wouldn't quite say that rebellion always means they have lost. I can't think of any examples right now but I'm certain there have been a few historical rebellions (called such) where the rebels won.

Revolt....hmm....I think it'd be a smaller scale rebellion.

This was a mutiny certainly, as said below its a rebellion involing soldiers/sailors going against their leaders--128.240.229.7 (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions of "Rebellion," "Revolt," "Mutiny," "Uprising,"

Here is Webster's Unabridged:

REVOLUTION, UPRISING, REVOLT, INSURRECTION, MUTINY, PUTSCH: rebellion commonly indicates open armed resistance to government of such strength as to constitute a formidable problem to the authorities <the term rebellion is applied to an insurrection of large extent, and is usually a war between the legitimate government of a country and portions or provinces of the same who seek to throw off their allegiance to it and set up a government of their own -- Instructions for Govt. of United States Armies> REVOLUTION usually applies to a successful rebellion accomplishing the overthrow of a government or the permanent nullifying of its sovereign authority in the territory in question, sometimes with concomitant sweeping economic and social changes <distinguish between revolutions affecting a change in a whole way of life, including religion, economics, and manners, as well as politics, and revolutions changing the form of government -- C.J.Friedrich> UPRISING may refer to a localized rebellion that flares into sudden, spontaneous, militant activity designed to overthrow authority <an Indian uprising drove him and his family from home, but on its suppression they returned -- W.J.Ghent> <an uprising now viewed as the real beginning of Ireland's "War of Independence" -- Current Biography> REVOLT may apply to a rebellion or uprising against legitimate authority by those owing it allegiance but refusing to accept its dictates <a premature revolt, of some 200 native soldiers ... had resulted in the deaths of their officers and in lusty shouts for independence -- C.A.Buss> INSURRECTION may suggest more truculent intransigeance and surging activity and less organized purpose than REVOLT <the new government was harassed by internal controversies and by assassinations, disorders, and insurrections -- Collier's Year Book> MUTINY applies to a determined localized insurrection and insubordination against maritime, naval, or military authority <mutiny imports collective insubordination and necessarily includes some combination of two or more persons in resisting lawful military authority -- U.S. Manual for Courts-Martial> PUTSCH suggests a revolt, turbulent demonstration, or planned attempt at a coup to seize a governmental administration <a putsch to take control of the government -- A.L.Funk> "rebellion." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. (5 Mar. 2008).

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

And here is the OED:

rebellion: 1. Organized armed resistance to the ruler or government of one's country; insurrection, revolt.

Examples: 1788 GIBBON Decl. & F. xlvi. (1869) II. 717 Every province of the empire was ripe for rebellion. 1857 BUCKLE Civiliz. I. xii. 686 There can be no doubt that rebellion is the last remedy against tyranny.

revolt: 1. An instance, on the part of subjects or subordinates, of casting off allegiance or obedience to their rulers or superiors; an insurrection, rising, or rebellion.

Examples: 1838 THIRLWALL Greece V. 11 To engage the Macedonian towns in a revolt against their sovereign. 1841 R. H. DANA Seaman's Man. 245 Every person so offending..shall be deemed guilty of a revolt or mutiny and felony. 1871 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. IV. xvii. 75 William chose as his companions the men whose power he dreaded... In their absence revolts would be less to be feared.

mutiny: 2. a. An instance of mutinous revolt; a rebellion of a substantial number of soldiers, sailors, prisoners, etc., against those in authority; a mutinous revolt. Also in extended use.

the Mutiny: the Indian mutiny of 1857-8, caused by widespread discontent with the British administration which led Indian troops to mutiny in several garrison towns, with accompanying massacres of European soldiers and inhabitants.

Exmples: 1855 E. C. GASKELL North & South I. xxv. 320 Her father's account of the relentless manner in which mutinies were punished made Margaret shiver. 1887 Spectator 21 May 683/2 He had lived through the Mutiny, he remembered when all India was in the crucible. 1903 W. H. GRAY Our Div. Shepherd iii. 42 An old scholar, who was first mate on board a ship when a mutiny broke out. 1988 M. MACMILLAN Women of Raj 11 The Mutiny did not by itself drive a wedge between the British and the Indians.

uprising7. An insurrection; a popular rising against authority or for some common purpose.

Examples: 1587 HOLINSHED Chron. III. 37/2 It was a greefe to him still to be vexed with such tumults and vprisings as they dailie procured. 1861 M. PATTISON Ess. (1889) I. 45 The great communistic uprising under Wat Tyler in 1381. 1871 FREEMAN Norm. Conq. xvii. IV. 54 Liable to be driven out whenever the whole nation should join together in one sudden and vigorous uprising.

Fowler&fowler «Talk» 06:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

oh well, revolt just sounds better though :-) Desione (talk) 06:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

List of things to be noted in article

I like this idea. The article is riddled with POV and unsubstantiated statements that we should seek Wikipedia:Consensus on.--RegentsPark (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I will add to this as I go along:

Locations need to be expanded in the lead or some sort of disambiguation added to present the scale of the event properly. There are some obvious once that are missing. Desione (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In the phrase "which, according to Indian custom, some felt, should have been passed on to him", "some felt" seems to be strange. Desione (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC) Desione (talk)

In "The justice system was considered to be inherently unfair to the Indians": It WAS unfair. And even if it was "considered unfair" who was considering it unfair? Get rid of the "considered to be". Desione (talk) 07:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the "considered to be". It was unfair but a 'perception of unfairness' is one of the likely causes of the event. Perhaps 'perceived to be' would be better than 'considered to be.--RegentsPark (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So the actual fact that "it was unfair" is less likely to cause an event as opposed to "perception or consideration of being unfair."? Desione (talk) 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This sounds fishy: "Some Indians were unhappy with the rule of the British and perceived a project of westernisation to be taking place, that, however well-meaning they may have been, they believed were imposed without any regard for Indian tradition or culture. The outlawing of Sati (self-immolation by widows) and child marriage, which to some appeared to be a precursor to an imposition of Christianity, [8] has also been put forward as a reason for the revolt." Desione (talk) 07:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Fishy why? Will consider if I can fix the wording and sourcing. Relata refero (talk) 13:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you are. Perfect now. Relata refero (talk) 14:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks relatively better though in general as compared to the benign stuff that was there in British Raj :-).

If a citation for the 'Indians claim' part of the 'Cawnpore' section can't be found, it should be removed or modified. I can't find any references that state that the British were armed when they marched to the boats. I know this is murky because the eyewitness sources are British but we need to either verify or remove (or caveat) stuff from this page. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was wrong and the British were perhaps armed. Forrest reports that a sowar laid a hand on the musket of an English soldier but was rebuffed (p.460) and that the "fire was returned" (p. 463).--RegentsPark (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Forrest's source is apparently Mowbray Thomson.--RegentsPark (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And here's Mowbray Thomson himself "We fired into them immediately," (p.166) he writes about the moment the firing from the banks started. "... Harrison, who received him with a charge of his revolver," (p170). --RegentsPark (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a lot of text devoted to the controversy on whether British had guns or not. Probably better to move all this discussion to the main article on "Cawnpore" or whatever it was called and just state here that there is a controversy. Desione (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Capt. Mowbray Thomson was practically the only surviving eyewitness, I'd say they were armed. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether they were armed or not. Don't make a court case out of it in the article. Move all this "controversy" to the main section (Siege of Cawnpore). Its confusing. They were arment... they were not..but then again then were... move it somewhere where you can discuss in all the detail you possibly can. Sounds like weasle wording to me. ok ? Desione (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care what the article says about their being armed or not. But, if the question is "were they unarmed?" the answer is clearly no. What exactly do you mean by "weasle wording" (sic)? --RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:AWW and [[WP::AWT]]Desione (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain which specific instance of wording you find weasly? Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Debate about character This section is poorly written. While there may be debate about the specifics, it is quite clear that the event started as a mutiny but mushroomed into a rebellion against British rule. Few respectable historians call it a war of independence and few, today, would label it a 'mere sepoy mutiny'. The section, IMHO, overplays the debate. The historical aspects of the debate are of greater interest. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Image of Jhasi ki Rani (if available) Desione (talk) 19:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some british images as well (instead of say syed ahmed or jhansi fort image). Desione (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. I added Sir Henry Lawrence to the Lucknow section. Will try to get some pictures from Forrest and Forbes-Mitchell, but not till next week.--RegentsPark (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a philospher to me. Perhaps an image holding a gun, shooting a gun, or blowing a "native" off a canon would be better :-) Otherwise a little too benign for my taste. Same with Syed Ahmed image - too benign and with all the fashion jewelry, it makes him appear like the current king of england. War like images or something with atleast a gun maybe. Thanks.Desione (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Armed/Unarmed in Cawnpore

It seems to me that the British did have some arms when they boarded the boats (as per Mowbray Thomson). However, I don't see much point in belaboring either case "the British still had their arms," or "they were unarmed," or whatever. They did have some arms but it is unlikely that the quantity was on any significance. Best, I think, to drop any reference to their being armed or not. To say they were unarmed flies against the report of Capt. Mowbray Thomson, to say that they still had arms implies that they could defend themselves which is extremely unlikely. Kaye and Malleson state that the British marched out with "their arms and sixty rounds of ammunition in their pouches," not enough to stave off the rebel army attack but certainly not un-armed either. --RegentsPark (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies im wrong regarding this. This is a source from the offical British `National Army Museum.

``The Indian boatmen, instead of pushing off, jumped overboard and made for the shore.

Fearful of treachery, the British immediately opened fire. The Nana’s men replied with grapeshot and the boats were soon full of casualties. Most of the 60 men who survived the short battle were immediately killed by the Nana’s troops.``

http://www.national-army-museum.ac.uk/exhibitions/indiaRising/page5.shtml

Rockybiggs (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I always thought that the British were unarmed but here I am sitting with Kaye and Malleson, Mowbray Thomson, and Forrest in front of me and they all say that the British had weapons. The point, of course, is that the British were surrounded by many sepoys, some sitting on high points surrounding the dock. Armed or not, they didn't stand a chance. The NAM reference is interesting because it states that the massacre was escalated by the British response to the "shot". I would have thought that there are no new eye-witness reports to the event!--RegentsPark (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As a participant in the War, the views expressed by an outlet of the British Army are not applicate as it is. I wouldn't consider the British Army website a source as obviously their view would be jaundiced. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In this instance the British National Army Museum seems to be more than fair. By stating that the British fired in response to a gunshot (which may or may not have been aimed at them), and that, because of this, the mutineers returned fire, the British NAM page downgrades the event from a pre-planned massacre (as it is described in many histories) to an accidental 'fog of war' event. I'm not sure what your beef is with that. --RegentsPark (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Just like your view Sir !. To say the British Army source as Jaundiced is laughable, its more reliable than the propaganda websites which have been referenced throught out this page.

To say you would not consider the NAM source because they were there, really you mean too say it doesn`t suit your Nationalism view. Shall we not consider any Indian sources, because they were there too ? ok. Rockybiggs (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the British Army Museum site seems to be right in this perspective. All I am saying is that according to Wikipedia policy, it can't be considered a reliable source as the British Army was a participant in this War. So, irrespective of whether it supports a pro-Indian or pro-British POV - what it says is completely irrelevant. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right about that. Not because the British Army was a participant in the war, but rather because an unsourced web page is hardly reliable. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi image issue

My problem is with formatting. If you put the image in causes it displaces mangal panday image away from section on mangal pandey. same with syed ahmed. Syed Ahmed has no role in the war, so his image may be more useful on his own biographical article to which a link can be provided from the "Causes" section if absolutely necessary. Desione (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

"Official name" (part II)

There's no consensus for that information. It is deeply contested even politically in India; according to Namwar Singh, the official history in the 1950s written by S.N. Sen specifically refused to call it "the First War...", choosing only to call it 1857. If we're going to have a list, it should make it clear that FWI is a popular name now; the Great Rebellion was the common name among English-speaking Indians prior to Independence; Ghadr was the common name at the time; etc., etc. Or, of course, we keep all such discussion out. Relata refero (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The name "First War of Independence" has been used by "president", "prime minister", and "speaker of the house" in the speeches on the official 150th anniversary of first war of independence. So its as official as it will get. Desione (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No. If its not stated that its the official title, if there are reliable sources that the official history did not choose that particular title, then its not. A bunch of current politicians using the word is as "official" as all the people who chose to call Bombay Mumbai before the name was changed. Relata refero (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding me. Now you have a problem with Mumbai as well? Have you been to India? Do you know anything about India, have you lived there, talked to people there? I mean do you have any contextual information or is all your knowledge about India based on little snippets of information that you find here and there? Desione (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Good, so you accept my points then. Relata refero (talk) 20:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are saying that your points are ridiculous, then I definitely accept them. Otherwise you are just arguing without giving any "real" information unlike what I have done on this talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Desione (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See above. The official histories have not used the name. I suggest you try and avoid personal attacks. The best POV-pusher is a polite POV-pusher. Relata refero (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw above. In the news article, the debate is not on whether the name "First War of Independence" should be replaced by some other name. That didn't happen. Desione (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The debate is on whether we can accurately say that FWI is the official name. We cannot. Relata refero (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, I missed this point. It would be easier to follow if you can continue in "official name (part III)" section. Thanks. Desione (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

1) There are debates about everything all the time. This doesn't mean that official position is any different. If you are looking for "official position" that do not involve any debate then you would find those only in dictatorships (perhaps). Desione (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

2) Your point is irrelevant, because even if the government of India started calling "Anglo-Sikh wars" as "First War of Independence" then we would be having the same debate on the talk page of "Anglo-Sikh wars". So the debate on whether the events of 1857 or whether the anglo-sikh wars should be called "First War of Independence" (as stated in the news article that you pointed out) has no relevance on our debate here. Just becuase someone creates a debate based on their POV, it doesn't mean that official position has changed. Desione (talk) 04:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The celebrations marking this series of events are called celebrations for the "First War of Indian Independence" - these celebrations are sanctioned and held by the Government of India. Stamps showing the Rani of Jhansi and Mangal Pandey as freedom fighters have been release by the Indian Postal Service, an arm of the Government of India. That's as official as it gets. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See above. When reliable sources indicate the official histories have avoided using the term, we cannot state definitively that is is the "official" name. Relata refero (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the PM, President, and Speaker of the house in India not reliable when it comes to setting offical policy? The only reason NCERT is reliable for you is becuase they just coincidently happen to match your point of view. NCERT's mandate does not involve setting official policy. Desione (talk) 21:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't mentioned the NCERT. I have mentioned the official history, by SN Sen, a different beast. Official histories are expressed through -er- official histories, not parliamentary addresses. Relata refero (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "offical history of india." Show me a statement from PM or President saying that there is and put links here. This is something I would like to see. Rest later, I have to take care of some other stuff. Desione (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, when one is unfamiliar with a topic, one should try informing oneself. If you had spent but a moment on actual research before making that pronouncement, you would have appeared efficient and well-informed. Official histories are common. The Office of Public Information in the UK put out the "official history" of Independence from the British side, "Transfer of Power". ICHR put out - the incomplete - official history of Independence from the Indian side, "Towards Freedom". And here are a few words on the official history of 1857: "....how national was the rebellion? That question was central to the official history of the uprising commissioned by the Government of India as well as the research of contemporary critics of that history. Nehru claimed the uprising as a part of the nationalist heritage. So did Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, the Minister of Education, in the long Introduction he wrote for the official history." OK? Relata refero (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Show me a statement from Indian government (PM, President) that there is an offical history or show me offical government of India website that talks about "offical history of India." Can you show me that? if not, you are just arguing for no reason Desione (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata refero. Besides, I have indicated above, the NCERT books, which are put out by the Ministry of Education of the Indian Government, refer to the upheaval as the "Revolt of 1857." This is true not just of the new NCERT books, but also of the one referenced above by user:RegentsPark in his write-up of the decision on the RFC. As for "popular," what little hearsay evidence there is, seems to suggest that most Indians continue to call it "Ghadar" (rebellion) in Hindi/Urdu. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Well then why don't you ask NCERT books to go and tell pm, president, and speaker of india to "recant" their statements or better yet ask "Gordon Brown" to give a guest lecture in the indian parliament saying that "First War of Independence" is not official title of the event and we will watch all the fun. A rebuttal for the "first war of independence" should come atleast from UK PM since Indian PM has used it in his speech in parliament. Desione (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Stay on topic. I don't see how Gordon Brown is relevant.

Did they make an official pronouncement about the name? No? Then can you demonstrate that they were speaking on a matter of policy rather than choosing their personally preferred name? No? OK, then.Relata refero (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Did NCERT make official pronouncement of the name? And yes they did when the released the press release announcing "150th anniversary of Indian's First War of Independence" Desione (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That isn't an answer to my question. Relata refero (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said earlier no one (UK or otherwise) has disputed the official name "First War of Independence" hence such a "clarification" is not needed (just like there is no clarification needed for the official name of India). Desione (talk) 21:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying it is the "official name". It is the official name used by State of India, a free nation in case you hadn't noticed. If the State of India decided to call it "The Battle of Timbuktoo"; it is their prerogative. Idi Amin offically crowned himself the King of Scotland and that was the position of the State of Uganda - UK doesn't have to accept it. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate an official statement to the effect that this is the official name? Because I can demonstrate that the official history chose not to use the name. Relata refero (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Such official statements are not necessary since UK (or a matter of fact anyone else) has not disputed the name that has been consistently used officially. Desione (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Being used by officials is not the same as being an official name. Relata refero (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Being used by officials in an official capacity is official. Continue discussion below now. Desione (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've lived in India for most of my life and the only time I've heard the term "gadar" is when I wince every time a particularly bad Sunny Deol movie comes on cable. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny :-) Desione (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing mentality of some of the people here is aquire completely ridiculous levels now. Desione (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives