Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this page.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved. Preloaded case page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8


Contents

[edit] Time Line

Not wishing to attack the creator of the new time line in the article but it does need work. I am happy to expand it but I see in the History there are questions over it staying.

May I suggest a new page with the timeline on it rather than its present position?

rsloch (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (BST)

[edit] Terminology

I have edited the article changing 'British' to 'Company' or 'European' depending on the context. I have done this for the following reasons:

The East India Company was legally a separate entity to the British state, and it controlled large parts of India as such. The article even states that one of the results of the rebellion 'End of Company Rule in India'. If you disagree with me on that then please consider that a lay reader will confuse 'British' to mean the British Raj which occurred later.

I use the term 'European' to describe that nature of those in the employ of the EIC and their dependents who were not just British. If we just use 'British' we exclude the involvement of other Europeans. While I accept it might cause a little confusion to those who see 'European' as meaning only those from Continental Europe but I can't think of a better collective noun.

I ask people not to simply undo the edits but explain any issues you might have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk • contribs) 17:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


This does raise important questions about the result of the conflict. At present we have a situation were it states that Company rule ended, but does not state the British won (there was a major debate a while back objecting to this), and that control was taken by the British crown. Now either the British (in the shape of the Company) were ruling India at the time, in which case the British retained control (and it could be argued even extended it), and thus won. Or Company rule was distinct and separate from the British government and thus the use of the term British in the body of the article is not accurate.

Also there was no bar on non-British whites (there was at least two Americans) working for the Company. Thus the term European can be seen as accurate (but having said that the number was small enough to be insignificant, and thus could be seen as not truly accurate either). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Definition of Mutiny, Revolt

Mutiny : forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority; especially : concerted revolt (as of a naval crew) against discipline or a superior officer [[1]]

I am disputing that the Honorable East India Company was a lawful authority. On what basis is it being said by numerous British POV-pushers here that the EIC was a lawful authority?


Revolt : to renounce allegiance or subjection (as to a government) [[2]]

I am fine with Indian troops renouncing their allegiance to the EIC - this is no way shows that the EIC was indeed a lawful authority. DemolitionMan (talk) 20:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The EIC does not have to be a lawful authority (though it was) to make what happened in part a mutiny, it just has to have employed the troops that mutinied. As the sepoys wore EIC uniforms, used weapons provided by the EIC, and fought and died for them, they at least thought it was a lawful authority.

In most cases a rebellion by troops is a mutiny.

Rsloch (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (BST)

I see there is nothing to back up that the EIC was a lawful authority - I shall be updating the word mutiny with revolt in light of this. DemolitionMan (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
A mutiny is simply a rising by soldiers, sailors etc against the officers or authority under whom they have taken service (voluntarily in the case of the Indian troops who had enlisted with the EIC). A revolt is a wider rising of non-military participants. The Indian Rebellion of 1857 was both a mutiny and a revolt. William Dalrymple's recently published "The Last Mughal" (ISBN 9780747587262) estimates that by August 1857 just under half of the defenders of Delhi were Muslim civilian jihadis who had joined with the sepoys. However it was still a mutiny as far as the latter were concerned and no arguments as to the legality or otherwise of the EIC can change that particular fact. 210.246.8.189 (talk) 08:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course it can change that alleged "fact". According to the definition, by using "mutiny", it is being insinuated implicitly that the EIC was a lawful authority. My question remains - on what basis was EIC a lawful authority? If you can state some lucid reasons, I am willing to withdraw my objection. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
By treaty with Mogul Kings and Mahratta Princes, etc. etc. it can be argued that the EIC was as "lawful" as any other power or potentate in India. The article makes plain that the EIC's overbearing assumption of authority under its "lawful" powers, rather than by the consent of any of its tenants or servants or other ruler, was the underlying cause of the Rebellion, no matter what the details (cartridges, Doctrine of Lapse etc.) Of course, any lawyer could argue that that by enlisting with the EIC's Army, the sepoys accepted the legality of the institution. (These sepoys weren't impoverished Irish driven to enlist by starvation; as the article makes plain again, these were predominantly high-caste or high-status people). By making a single-handed stand on what appears to be a pettifogging quibble about one word (going so far as to call it pro-Imperial), you are going against concensus and imposing POV. The article should (and does in my opinion) make clear the grounds of the sepoys' reasons for revolt; it certainly does not dismiss it as merely a "grouse" about bad rations or Bligh-like officers. The article as it stands (and is currently being improved) is an excellent vehicle for any reader to see beyond the Victorian soldiers' shorthand term of "the Mutiny", and research its causes and nature; mere revisionism will obscure the content and depth of research which most of the contributors have made. HLGallon (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As a postscript, I do feel that some recent edits have gone too far, in treating "Mutiny" and "Rebellion" as two unconnected events. Sepoys had the same grievances as most of those dispossessed by EIC policies. HLGallon (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Again to disregard this stuff about the EIC being lawful in India in general as it'll never get anywhere- the soldiers' employment contracts (or agreement of employment) under them certainly would be legally binding and lawful.--128.240.229.67 (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a waste of time to argue whether there was a mutiny or not. There clearly was a mutiny in the sense of an open rebellion against a proper authority. Whether the EIC was legally an authority is besides the point, they had a recognizable and long standing army of which the soldiers were a part and, as 128.240.229.67 points out, the sepoys were obviously contractually obliged to obey their officers. Removing the word 'mutiny' from the article would be wrong because the accepted wisdom is that there was a mutiny. I suggest we all move on from this discussion. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you are right. I will withdraw my objection as soon as you can show me a copy of that contract. DemolitionMan (talk) 16:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Very funny. :-). Contracts are not always written and can be implied. Clearly, as soldier employees of the EIC's army, the sepoys were under a contract, either written or implied. I'm not sure I understand why you are so against using the word 'mutiny'. It is a generally accepted way of describing the conflict (which is reason enough to include it in a wikipedia article), there is nothing derogatory in mutinying against a foreign power, and, as long as the article makes it clear that the mutiny evolved into a rebellion, the scale of the conflict is not understated. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Legality is based on a sense of Justice which I think was sadly missing from East India Rule. Desione (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Legality is based on law, just or unjust, and for the time the EIC was probably more just than most in India (which is not saying much).

Rsloch (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2008 (BST)

Not really. Legality has nothing to do with ethics. It was legal to have slaves in the US, apartheid was legal in South Africa - none of this was legal and while I think such laws were unethical (some British POV pushers here might dispute the ethics bit), if it was legal - then that's the law of the land. However, I am yet to see a copy of that much touted contract between the sepoys and the EIC. There was tons of sepoys - surely there is a copy somewhere you can show me to prove your point. Else, I shall be forced to edit out the mutiny bit. 04:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


There was no written contract in a modern sense (most sepoys were illiterate).However Philip Mason in his history of the Indian Army "A Matter of Honour", records the oath that each newly enlisted sepoy took to the colours, in front of his company under arms and in the presence of his officer and the person of his religion or caste who was to administer the oath, as follows:

"I ...AB... do swear to serve the Honourable Company faithfully and truly against all their enemies, while I continue to receive their pay and eat their salt. I do swear to obey all the orders I may receive from my Commanders and Officers, never to forsake my post, abandon my Colours or turn my back to my enemies and that I will in all things behave myself like a good and faithful sepoy in perfect obedience at all times to the rules and customs of war".210.246.20.237 (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The East India Company did a lot more than provide contracts. It provided pension plans and "invalid" thanas for disabled soldiers. I have added Seema Alavi's paper The Company Army and Rural Society: The Invalid Thanah 1780-1830 to the page's references (journal's list). (Requires JSTOR access) Here is a quote from it though:
“ "On being admitted into the Thanah every invalid received a copy of his descriptive roll which contained his past history. The roll was his identity card which entitled him to all the benefits of the Thanah in the district where he resided. On the receipt of this roll, the local Collector was authorized to extend the benefits of pay and pension to him. In I 796, when the Company decided to extend the privileges of the Thanah to the family and heirs of the invalids, the descriptive roll of the sipahi became the link between the military and civil authority. For it was on the receipt of the descriptive roll that the civil authority made payments of pay and pension to his family. ”

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight - initially it was said that there was a contract. Now it is being said that there was no contract at all? 124.124.0.1 (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Still awaiting that much touted contract. Another lie perhaps? DemolitionMan (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No nineteenth century army would have had its recruits sign a contract. It would have been considered as reducing the recognition of authority and the commitment to serve and obey to a squalid commercial level of little real significance to the parties involved. There is the practical problem as noted above that most sepoys (and many British soldiers) of the period were illiterate. However the taking of an oath, the wording of which seems very clear, was in every sense an equivalent - indeed to both the British and Indian military mind involving the acceptance of a high obligation and binding commitment. To quote Philip Mason again: "The sepoy's oath was longer and more impressive. It was in itself intelligible; everyone in India knows what is meant by being faithful to the salt one has eaten. It appealed to the personal honour of the man who swore and this concept was often strong among the communities from whom the men came. It was taken in circumstances that were impressive and likely to be remembered; it helped to establish an atmosphere in in which fidelity had a meaning. And it bound fidelity to a visible symbol, the colours".210.246.16.220 (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oral contracts exist even today.--Him and a dog 18:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The moguls were hardly just (and oddly many of the reasons that are used to justify the Mutiny are acts or practices that were legal under the Moguls, were outlawed by the EIC, and are still illegal in India today). Also there was taking the salt, and implied unwritten contract, and one that British officers felt was unyielding and that is one of the reasons that the revolt was such a shock. [[Slatersteven (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Enough is enough with "First War of Independence"

I feel that this page is being held hostage by user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione, who are insisting on edits that go counter to anything that is considered remotely reasonable in the current historiography of India. First they had insisted on adding the Hindi script; now, finding they can't push that, they're wasting everyone's time with ludicrous claims about the "First War of Independence."

Well, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the division of the Ministry of Education, Government of India, that sets the curriculum standards for high-school students in India, has finally made available the last quarter of its year-long history sequence used in all high-schools (grade/standard XII) in India. These books have been used by all Indian high-school students since 2005. Here is the chapter on the rebellion: Rebels and the Raj: The Revolt of 1857 and its representations Nowhere does it refer itself to the rebellion as the "First War of Independence" in any discussion. Nowhere! The only place where the expression is used is in the "Images of the Rebellion" chapter ("Nationalistic Imagery" section), and this is what it has to say:

“ The national movement in the twentieth century drew its inspiration from the events of 1857. A whole world of nationalist imagination was woven around the revolt. It was celebrated as the First War of Independence in which all sections of the people of India came together to fight against imperial rule. (page 313) ”

That's it! Don't you think it is shameful, that if the Indian high-school books don't use the expression, "First War of Independence" anywhere except in a discussion how it was used for nationalistic purposes in the first half of the 20th century, we are allowing two editors to edit-war endlessly (all in the name of civility and no personal attacks).

The book uses both "mutiny" and "revolt" to describe the rebellion, for example:

“ If one were to place the dates of these mutinies in chronological order, it would appear that as the news of the mutiny in one town travelled to the next the sepoys there took up arms. The sequence of events in every cantonment followed a similar pattern. (page 2) ”

and here is what it says about the definitions:

“ Mutiny – a collective disobedience of rules and regulations within the armed forces. Revolt – a rebellion of people against established authority and power. The terms ‘revolt’ and ‘rebellion’ can be used synonymously. In the context of the revolt of 1857 the term revolt refers primarily to the uprising of the civilian population (peasants, zamindars, rajas, jagirdars) while the mutiny was of the sepoys. (page 4) ”

This is exactly what I have said a number of times above. I think it is time we stopped cajoling editors who are disruptive. If these two editors, do not stop their disruptive editing, (and they can take that as a threat if they want), I will have an RFC on this page and advertise on the History, South Asia and Britain portals. I am proposing that the disputed sentence should read:

“ The rebellion is also known as the Indian Mutiny, Great Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Revolt of 1857, and predominantly in India, First War of Independence (with link to the (term) page). ”

In light, not only of all the academic literature on the subject that I have listed above, but also of the usage in the book chapter, this the best we can do. All the stuff about popular or official in India is the POV of individual editors, not the consensus of scholarly opinion, even at the high-school level, in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I am little lost here. I mean if you are saying that all the talk about "First War of Independence" being official and popular is just POV pushing then why even bother to include it in the sentence that you propose (and that too as "predominantly"): The rebellion is also known as the Indian Mutiny, Great Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Revolt of 1857, and predominantly in India, First War of Independence? As for the rest I think there are several suggestions above regarding best way to include "First War of Independence" and I will wait for DemolitionMan and others to comment on it further. Thanks. Desione (talk) 03:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
"Predominantly" means "chiefly," "mainly," or "for the most part." The statement allows that it is used in India, it doesn't get into whether it is exclusive to India, or whether it is popular or official there. Period. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Fowler I think you are lying. Not all high-school students use NCERT text-books. Different state boards publish different text-books and most states are affiliated to the local state board not to the NCERT material. As it is, the NCERT material changes depending on who is in power in New Delhi - if it's the BJP the syllabus is saffron, if it is the CPI and its cronies it becomes red. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Here is the book chapter from the Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and guess what it is called? Great Revolt of 1857. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Tamil Nadu the only state in India? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The sad thing is that I didn't know anything about secondary education usage in India, while both user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione were claiming "backyard rights" to that knowledge (i.e. it is happening in my backyard and we know it). Well apparently, they don't. It is clear that "First War of Independence" is not used by all high-school students in India. user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione can carp all they want, but they don't have statistics on their side. As has already been acknowledged, the expression "First War of Independence" is used in India, but, as the above links also amply show, it is not exclusive usage, indeed it is not even clear if it is majority usage. I think the statement, "The rebellion is also known as the Indian Mutiny, Great Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Revolt of 1857, and predominantly in India, First War of Independence (with link to the (term) page)" is a fair description of the current usage of the term. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. Here is the 10th grade social science book from the same Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and guess what the third chapter is called: "THE FIRST WAR OF INDIAN INDEPENDENCE (GREAT REVOLT OF 1857) — END OF EAST INDIA COMPANY’S RULE" [3]. Plus a history syllabus from state of Madhya Pradesh in both English and Hindi and guess what its called here "First War of Independence" again! [4]. Desione (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And what do we have here [5]. A writeup on "First War of Independence" from public relations office from north-eastern state of Mizoram. Wow! Desione (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Am glad you called Fowler's bluff. He's been lying for a while now. As can be seen from all these links - Mutiny is never mentioned. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That this title needs the qualifier (great revolt of 1857) I'd think would more prove the point that it generally isn't called the WOI- this book (a social science one, not history) is feeling the need to make a point that the rebellion was like a war of independance, its fully accepting that it wasn't actually called this.--Him and a dog 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"A history alumnus of Lucknow University, Vikrant Nath has translated his love for the subject and his concern for preservation of India�s ecology into an entrepreneurial venture committed to sensitising the public � especially students � to their cultural and environmental heritage. Launched in 1999, the Karavan Heritage and Nature Society is a first-of-its-type education enterprise. As Nath explains, "its purpose is to experience India in her jungles, her wilderness, her myriad life forms, monuments, books, poetry, music and dance". To this end the Karavan Society organises affordably priced workshops, excursions, tours and summer camps.

"Each one of our activities is customised," says Nath. Thus for school children there is the Freedom Tour which is a day-long visit to the monuments associated with India�s first war of independence. "Through a hands-on experience of historic monuments and listening to experts explaining their historical context, student involvement in history is stimulated � something rote or textbook learning can never achieve," says Nath." So much for all students being taught the "Indian Mutiny" nonsense. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And this is from the Missouri Southern State University "The next few pages deal with British mercantilism and warfare and conflicts in India between England and France. Under the sub-heading "The Indian Revolt," the first sentence reads, "India in the mid-1800s presented the strange spectacle of a huge land, with millions of people and an ancient civilization, controlled by a foreign commercial corporation." Once again, according to the textbook, India is somehow out of sync with the rest of the world and a "strange spectacle." The Mutiny of 1857, or the First War of Independence, as it is called in Indian and Pakistani history textbooks, and which..." from "Teaching South Asia" Link - [[6]] Apparently, everyone except Fowler&Fowler are Indian POV-pushers. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Asia society: "Asia is also portrayed through Western eyes. Only one out of seven widely used textbooks examined points out that the war the British call the Sepoy Mutiny is called the "First War of Indian Independence" by Indians" Link - [[7]]

Telegraph: "Just back from Meerut where I've been observing a rally to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 1857 Rebellion - or First War of Independence as it is known in these parts." [[8]]

Madhya Pradesh: "Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to ensure that Class X social science textbook replaces the term '1857 Mutiny' with India's First War of Independence." [[9]]

Anthropology of North-East India: Textbook - [[10]]

Want more??? DemolitionMan (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Gujarat: What students are taught -

The Gujarat government has asked all affiliated colleges of Gujarat University (GU) in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar to send 250 to 300 students each for Narendra Modi's youth convention to be held at the Gujarat College campus today, Sahara Samay sources said.

The convention is being organised by the Cultural Affairs department in collaboration with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC).

The Yuva Sangam is being held to commemorate 150 years of the First War of Independence and the martyrs of 1857.

A circular issued by GU Vice-Chancellor Parimal Trivedi, dated July 30, asks all colleges to help in making the programme a success.

"Every college should attempt to get at least 250-300 students to the venue by 5 pm. NCC and NSS students should take part in the torch procession in their uniform," says the circular.


However, Fowler continues with his blatant lies. DemolitionMan (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

So we are back to square one. I don't care which order the wording is in. But don't those who want the wording: "The rebellion which is popularly known as First War of Independence in India is also known as the Indian Mutiny, the Sepoy Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, and the Revolt of 1857." see that it "can be misunderstood because the current wording can imply that the list that follows are only terms used in India (and that else where it is exclusively known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad dude. As I said earlier - this is never going to end. Neither side is going to blink. The British firmly believe that it was Mutiny and Indians firmly believe it was a WoI. I guess it was a bit of both. However, since more people who speak this language know it as WoI or Uprising - according to Wikipedia policy this should get preference. However, I concede that paradoxically more Brits would visit this page at least for the next few years till Internet penetration in India increases and awareness about Wikipedia grows. A few years down the line when a vote is held - more people will vote to move the page to WoI. I am merely holding the fort till then. DemolitionMan (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Point me to this policy. And I am tired of this "Brits" crap. You don't know if I am British or Brazilian, and I intend to keep it that way.
Note that Fowler has demonstrated that "predominantly" is inappropriate, by producing several HS syllabi. Relata refero (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DemolitionMan, I am not discussing if it is "popularly known" or "infrequently known " I am discussing the structure of the sentence. Do you not see that the sentence "can be misunderstood because the current wording can imply that the list that follows are only terms used in India (and that else where it is exclusively known as the Indian Rebellion of 1857). For precision of meaning it is much better that either factoid is dropped (then they can be in alphabetical order) or that the factoid and first war of independence is placed last. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Refero - Here is the policy text

The key principles in summary are:

   * If a native name has a common English-language equivalent, the English version takes precedence (e.g. Munich rather than München; China rather than Zhōngguó).
   * If the name is a self-identifying term for the entity involved and there is no common English equivalent, use the name that the entity has adopted to describe itself.
   * If the name is that of an inanimate or non-human entity, there is no common English equivalent and no dispute over the entity's name, use the official designation (or an English translation thereof) applied by the governing body of the jurisdiction in which the entity is predominately found (e.g. Orlické Mountains from the Czech Orlické hory).
   * If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the commonest English-language name.
   * If the name of an inanimate or non-human entity is disputed by two jurisdictions and there is no English-language equivalent, use the commonest non-English name.

A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or self-identifying usage:

   * Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations; focus on reliable sources)
     Yes it is - in English in India
   * Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
     Yes it is - lots of proof has been provided so far including stamps issued by the Govt. of India 
   * Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

Subjective criteria (such as "moral rights" to a name) should not be used to determine usage. These include:

   * Does the subject have a moral right to use the name?
   * Does the subject have a legal right to use the name?
   * Does the name infringe on someone else's legal or moral rights?
   * Is the use of the name politically unacceptable?

Where a choice exists between native and common English versions of names (e.g. Deutsch/German), the common English version of the name is usually preferred. The common English version of the name is WoI as has been repeatedly pointed out.

"Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." - Majority of English speakers know it as WoI. DemolitionMan (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia page is this? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The text DM refers to can be found at WP:NAME. Ronnotel (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I tire of this discussion, but thank you, DM, for quoting large parts of WP:NAME. I note, however, that there is a section further up the page demonstrating that it is not the "official current name" used by the GOI; that this very section demonstrates that "the common English name" is not the FWI, as not even Indian HS textbooks use that exclusively. Indian newspaper accounts are similarly divided; Indian historians use other terms almost exclusively. This is my last word on what is a boring subject. There is not now, nor has there ever been, justification in policy for extensive dickering about the name. Please return to actual important points, such as the possibility that two unbalanced sections on Arrah and Indore have recently been added. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
For the record, again: FWoI has always been the official name and has always been the popular name and I think this has already been demonstrated quite extensively on the talk page. Move on. Desione (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope. You haven't cited it to a reliable source anywhere. You've merely asserted it ad infinitum. So there's no reason why we should listen any more. And I've moved on, I suggest you do so tout d'suite. Relata refero (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's just go back to "It is also known as the First War of Independence, the Great Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, The Revolt of 1857, and the Sepoy Mutiny. Clearly there is a lack of consensus about official, popular, etc. and WP:NCON clearly states that, when there is a lack of consensus, alternative names should be included in alphabetical order. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The term "First War of Independence" needs to get its due precedence Desione (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why the name "First War of Independence" should get precedence:

  • official and popular term in India (or predominant or popular if you so prefer to label it)
  • extensively large number of english speakers in India (arguably the largest number in the world)
  • since this is Indian history views in india atomatically get precedence.
  • wikipedia policies as someone quoted above.
I am getting tired of people blindly reverting based on their "POV" without any reason. Based on the four reasons given above, can someone explain to me why the term "First War of Independence" should not get precedence? Thank you. Desione (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Views in India automatically get precedence... no. Relata refero (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, the name is "First War of Independence" and best used as "India's First War of Independence" or just as "First War of Independence" when the context is clear, but not as "First War of Indian Independence". For those of you who are including english speakers in US in their calculation, please note that hardly anyone in US cares about FWoI. In fact if you tell people in US about "First War of Indian Independence", they will get thoroughly confused as to whether it was the Cherokee Indians or Navajo Indians who were waging which war against who. So again, be careful in lumping english speaking populations who have no idea or don't care about this. Desione (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If they are thinking about the Cherokee or the Navajo, won't they be confused by the current page name, "Indian Rebellion of 1857", in the first place? And, if they are not so confused, and if they have read through the first few sentences (with references to the British East India Company, Upper Gangetic Plain, and central India), they are hardly likely to then think of the Cherokee or the Navajo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes that ("Indian Rebellion of 1857") itself is confusing. I was waiting for things to calm down before bringing it up, but thanks for pointing it out. Atleast we have some agreement somewhere Desione (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Most common name outside India is Indian Mutiny. Not the first was of Indian independence. 2. Extensive and large numbers of English speakers outside India (perhaps a majority). 3. Since this is part of the history of the British empire (the rulers of most of the revolting area at the time) they should take precedent. 4. As has been said before common does not mean only. There is a common name in English. [[Slatersteven (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

"They should take precedence?" Which they? Relata refero (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
And how exactly did you come to the conclusion that most common name outside India is "Indian Mutiny" given the fact that no one outside India or UK really cares about "First War of Independence" anyway? Desione (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as British Raj is concerned its dead so its views are irrelevant. The views in India matter because this is part of Indian history, the events occurred in India, and most of the people who were involved (died, suffered loss, gained or lost anything) were Indians, so the Indian perspective on this event is unique and indispensable unlike the views in current day UK or that of British Raj. Desione (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I think having WOI last on the list makes it stand out quite a bit- especially considering its a bright blue link with a bit of text before it. Just the way I look at it here but being last on a list is can be the more prominent position. But meh, the main point here is of course that with the predominantly qualifier it has to go last for the sake of grammar.

The British Raj being dead so its views are irrelevant- This really goes counter to all the common guidelines of history study. --Him and a dog 13:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are a number of histories written out side the UK and India. Some have even been quoted in other discussions. It is also part of British history. The British Raj (and the EIC) were directly involved, how many Indians alive today were?[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Cawnpore (again)

I think that the 'Indian Sources' vs. 'Non-Indian Sources' is not meaningful (mea culpa: I'm partially guilty for starting this trend). The facts about Cawnpore are quite straightforward and everyone agrees about the firing at the ghat and the massacre at Bibighar. The only issues are whether the firing was planned or not and the why of the massacre (and neither have viewpoints that are clearly Indian, British, or non-Indian in general). I think my rewrite captures the essence of the 'was it planned or not'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RegentsPark (talk • contribs) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it does read better.[[Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)]]