Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 3

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

message: Why not The 1857 Indian Uprising ??-It is was indeed a major uprising, and (having no personal connection) NPOV. And then list the other names under it at the begining of the article? Not everyone has to argee, and "American Civil War" has the same problem, and is from the same era.... --Cybersquire 16:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry cyber - the problem isn't about the article title (which has been accepted - sort of - by all), but about how we list the alternative names in the intro section and also the text in the "debate over name of conflict" section. I think we're getting to a resolution.... Tomandlu 16:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Compromise?

message: Hmm, tempted to put a bid in on this:
Indian Mutiny map on ebay
Tomandlu 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: And now for something completely different - Map

message: Thanks for opening an RfC for this page.  I'll try a very rough stab at setting forth matters in a neutral manner.  Feel welcome to clarify, but try to keep things brief and to the point.
*The dispute is over the best name for this article.
*Mutiny is a term in longstanding use as a description of these events.  The term connotes defiance against legitimate power and arguably represents colonialist POV.  On the other hand, British colonial rule ended 60 years ago and is very unlikely to resume.
*Rebellion might carry similar connotations to a lesser degree.  It could also be a neutral description of an armed attempt at political independence that failed to achieve its goals.
*War of Independence is a modern term used in India and Pakistan.  It is not in broad use in the rest of the English speaking world and might be confusing because neither country actually achieved independence in 1857.
*Indian could be a hot button term for parts of former British India.  The colony was partitioned at independence and some territorial conflicts have followed between the modern states.  The Kashmir region in particular has been the focal point of several wars, most recently in 1999.
I hope that summarizes the dilemma for visitors. Durova 03:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why for something to be a "mutiny" the question of "legitimate power" comes into it at all.  The troops were in British employ and rose up against their (British) officers.  It was thus a "mutiny" against the de facto political authorities.  The issue of whether their authority was legitimate ought not come up, and I don't think there's any connotation whatsoever about the nature of British rule in India.  I suppose it implies that the mutineers were soldiers in the employ of the British, but, um, they were.  To say this is not to advance a POV.  The supposed POV issues of rebellion are even less serious, I think.  And I don't think that anybody has yet brought up any POV objections to "Indian."  "Pakistan" obviously did not exist until 1947. john k 04:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that this was not the potentially offensive meaning that was argued by Durova above.  I agree that the word mutiny implies (but does not mean) that it was only soldiers who revolted.  That being said, it has always been clear, even from imperialist accounts by people who call it "the Mutiny," that this was not the case.  The fact that a name is a misnomer is not a good reason to not call it that if that is the most common name.  See for instance Hundred Years War, which lasted 116 years (unlike most other "X Years War"s, which lasted for exactly the amount of time stated, even the Eighty Years War, if we assume it started in 1568).  The War of the Polish Succession, in spite of the fact that Poland was an elective monarchy, and thus had no succession.  The Battle of Bunker Hill, actually fought on Breed's Hill.  The general solution we adopt in such instances is to explain the possible confusions of the term in the text, not to suppress the most common name. john k 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell you one thing - I wouldn't dream of putting a comment on a historical event by the Speaker of the British House of Commons in a Wikipedia article. This is partly because the incumbent is a cretin, but more generally because what politicians have to say about history is generally unreliable. They have no historical training, they don't undertake research, they're not published or peer-reviewed most  of the time (and when they are they're not always reliable - I wouldn't consider Winston Churchill's historical writings to be so). When it's just a speech, as here, you have to bear in mind that they always have an agenda to push, in this case good old-fashioned nationalist rabble-rousing. Banging on about the "First War of Indian Independence" is a lot easier than actually doing something for your constituents. To accord such prominence to a completely POV quote from a politician and non-historian, and then claim it represents the views of a majority of Indians, is not acceptable. Most Indians I imagine neither know nor care what this conflict is called - "Indian Mutiny" is, as I have said many times before, inaccurate, but to describe it as "offensive" is just ridiculous chippiness. It's wrong because it's too limited a description of what happened, but the Rebellion did begin with a mutiny in the Bengal army. It is also still very widely used, even within the subcontinent, much more so than "First War of Indian Independence". Whilst we argue about this and politicise the page, it remains badly organised and poorly referenced, with numerous factual inaccuracies and intemperate language: there are better uses for our energies. Finally, fascinating as I have found this endless bickering on the talk page, I somehow do not think that this dispute is of any interest to ordinary readers of Wikipedia. That is why I deleted that section.Sikandarji 08:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  "I believe that elected leaders reflect the opinions and feelings of the citizens of the nation." Maybe I'm just an incorrigible cynic, but I don't. These are both POVs of course - we could have a little poll to see how many people think politicians can be relied upon to simply reflect the wishes of those who elected them. On the other hand we could drop it as a waste of time.Sikandarji 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that in wikipedia generally, statements by politicians are only taken to be reliable sources for what that politician believes. john k 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.
As a gesture of good faith, I ask each of the editors here to strike out impolite statements such as "...showing your obviously racist tendencies..." and "...you are clearly only here to promote your ideology..."  Whichever side of the matter you stand on, make it a point to conduct yourself with class so that - at best - you create a great article together or that - at worst - the other editor's behavior eventually speaks for itself at dispute resolution and someone hands you a barnstar for displaying grace under fire.  Regards, ye-olde-administrator Durova 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that matter? I've told you before. Judge historians by the quality of their arguments and the reliability of their sources, not by their nationality. Dalrymple's not the greatest historian in fact (although he's always entertaining). However, he has a very good research team working for him, including a scholar called Faruqi who reads Persian and Urdu. The most interesting stuff in "The Last Mughal" is taken from the "Mutiny Papers" from the National Archives of India, documents in Urdu and Persian written during the internal administration of the city under Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons, and the Dihli Urdu Akhbar, the Urdu-language newspaper which carried on publishing throughout the siege. These are the sources which reveal certain tensions between the largely Hindu Sepoys and Muslims from the Doab region who had poured into Delhi to fight a holy war against the British. In any case, that's not central to the point I'm making: Hindus and Muslims did fight the British side by side in 1857. But to equate these with the modern Indian and Pakistani nationalities is extremely problematic. The fact is that the majority of the "British" troops besieging Delhi from the Ridge were Punjabis and Pathans. That's what makes Vajpayee's statement good politics, good, admirable and humane foreign policy, but bad history. Sikandarji 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comments 

message: It doesn't help collaborative editing to personalize a dispute with confrontational phrases and hot button words.  Let's remember Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith.  Another Wikipedia page, the essay Wikipedia:No angry mastodons applies here:
:One of the best experiences at Wikipedia happens among editors with deep differences. People don't have to agree about a topic to collaborate on a great article. All it takes is mutual respect and a willingness to abide by referenced sources and site policy. If you think you're right, dig up the very best evidence you can find and put that in the article. Let the other side's best evidence be a challenge to raise your own standards and always bear the big picture in mind: we're here to provide information for nonspecialists.
As a gesture of good faith, I ask each of the editors here to strike out impolite statements such as "...showing your obviously racist tendencies..." and "...you are clearly only here to promote your ideology..."  Whichever side of the matter you stand on, make it a point to conduct yourself with class so that - at best - you create a great article together or that - at worst - the other editor's behavior eventually speaks for itself at dispute resolution and someone hands you a barnstar for displaying grace under fire.  Regards, ye-olde-administrator Durova 03:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does that matter? I've told you before. Judge historians by the quality of their arguments and the reliability of their sources, not by their nationality. Dalrymple's not the greatest historian in fact (although he's always entertaining). However, he has a very good research team working for him, including a scholar called Faruqi who reads Persian and Urdu. The most interesting stuff in "The Last Mughal" is taken from the "Mutiny Papers" from the National Archives of India, documents in Urdu and Persian written during the internal administration of the city under Bahadur Shah Zafar and his sons, and the Dihli Urdu Akhbar, the Urdu-language newspaper which carried on publishing throughout the siege. These are the sources which reveal certain tensions between the largely Hindu Sepoys and Muslims from the Doab region who had poured into Delhi to fight a holy war against the British. In any case, that's not central to the point I'm making: Hindus and Muslims did fight the British side by side in 1857. But to equate these with the modern Indian and Pakistani nationalities is extremely problematic. The fact is that the majority of the "British" troops besieging Delhi from the Ridge were Punjabis and Pathans. That's what makes Vajpayee's statement good politics, good, admirable and humane foreign policy, but bad history. Sikandarji 23:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Administrator blows Wiki-whistle: timeout

message: The majority of other language wikipedia articles in latin script refer to this conflict using some variant of "Sepoy Mutiny"/"Indian Mutiny".  That pretty much shows that such terminology is not confined to the UK, indeed in the US the terms Indian Mutiny/Sepoy Muting are also the most widely used, as in the rest of the anglophone world apart from the subcontinent.  You have to allow your preferred term to be criticised in the article if you are allowed to criticise other POV in the article.  Otherwise you are simply promoting th idea of the conflict being a WOI at the expense of other views on the conflict.NJW494 17:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who know about it at all in the U.S. (and they are few, given the general lack of interest shown by Americans in anything which isn't in their backyard) are much more likely to know of it as the "Indian Mutiny", as that is what most books on the subject call it (most of those which don't call it the 1857 Revolt or Rebellion or something similar). That said, I cannot see any necessity for the line which NJW494 has been adding "However the term First War of Indian Independence has had very little popular or academic recognition outside the subcontinent." It is indeed a loaded and unnecessary statement. There is a lengthy section already devoted to the debate over whether or not it was a "War of Independence" which will tell the neutral reader all which he or she needs to know. Equally, Jvalant's reference to "Indian Mutiny" being "controversial" and the whole section dealing with the "debate over the name" should be deleted as superfluous. See my other comments above. Sikandarji 18:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are books which use the term "Sepoy Mutiny", for instance Ramesh Chandra Majumdar's The Sepoy Mutiny and the Revolt of 1857 (Calcutta) 1957, or Edward Vibart The Sepoy Mutiny as seen by a Subaltern. From Delhi to Lucknow (London) 1898. Tapti Roy uses the expression as well in her 1991 book. It's not "weird" at all - I've certainly seen the term used before, which is scarcely surprising as it's a precise description of the early stages of the Rebellion in the Bengal army. And to Jvalant - I fail to see a distinction between inserting quotes from the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and quotes from the Prime Minister or other MPs. They're all politicians, not historians. Maybe if I searched long and hard I could find a quotation from a British MP about the "Mutiny", but what would its interest or relevance be? I've already told you that I wouldn't dream of putting an equivalent quotation into the article. Frankly, nobody in the UK (or anywhere else I should imagine) gives a stuff what Indian politicians call it, so what's it doing in the article? Sikandarji 08:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its probably high time that we reached a consensus on removing all pieces of POV from the name section. Does anyone other than Jvalant object to my removal of all loaded comments (including that random Indian politician's POV)?  NJW494 08:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  With all due respect to NJW494's obsession to anglecize the article; it seems we will need to keep a watchman for this section or else he might go ahead with a proposal by a voice vote and the time given for voting will only be enough for him to cough once. NJW, there are better things in life than to undo wrongs of ancestors. --Bobby Awasthi 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm just interested in NPOV, I'm acting on comments made by other users who do not see the point in allowing politics and POV to intrude on a historical article.  Your comments are quite out of order.  I will not respond with childish name calling as this debate is already heated, but I'll be damned if I tolerate such remarks about my character. You assume because I'm English that my intention is to anglicise the article, but one wonders whether your nationality may perhaps come into play here.  NJW494 16:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence for assertion that majority of countries know this conflict as a sepoy/Indian Mutiny: 

message: Merge as suggested.  Hmains 03:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge suggestion 

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

message: MANY MONTHS AGO I HAD MENTIONED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THIS ARTICLE WAS PARTICULARLY TILTING IN FAVOUR OF A PARTICULAR NATIONALISM. BUT I FIND MOST OF THE TALK PAGE DELETED ALTOGETHER.
I think someone has to start editing the language. So let it be myself. I am trying to only remove 'weasle words' as per Wikipedia conventions and accordingly changing 'weasle sentences' (lemme call them that).
There was an incident in Nagpur as well. I had posted it. It should be in the archives. (Jvalant 11:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd Cavalry / Cawnpore etc: 

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

message: Whoever is vandalizing the page by removing the Hindi title unilaterally should stop doing so without a prior discussion. I think it should stay.
:This is English Wikipedia, and hence vernacular scripts are to be avoided as far as possible. The exceptions are when the exact spelling of a non-English name is mentioned. What you have here is simply the Hindi transalation of the title, which is unnecessary. That name belongs on the Hindi Wikipedia, which is linked through the sidebar. Gamesmaster G-9 08:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because the nation of India has an official name in Hindi which is different from the English name. This is entirely different. Its just a direct transalation of the title. Gamesmaster G-9 09:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really - it is the unofficial name Bharat which is written in the Hindi script. The official name "Bharat Ganrajya" is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 09:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point - "Bharat" is a NAME. It is also the correct name in Hindi for India, i.e. how the nation of India is to be addressed in Hindi. The Mutiny of 1857 is an EVENT. It does not have a proper name, and any Hindi phrase you affix to it is merely a transalation. Gamesmaster G-9 10:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are missing the point. "Mutiny of 1857" is NAME given to an EVENT. Just as "War of Independence" is a NAME given to an EVENT or the Olympics is a NAME given to a Sporting EVENT. Incidentally, it is the Hindi words used here are also the official name through which the Govt. of India addresses this event in Hindi. (Jvalant 19:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I'm not seeking to denigrate Indian and Pakistani perspectives, rather to add a little counterbalance to the Indian opinion.  After a cooling off period I've decided that the name and character sections certainly did need a little tweak to put the Indian subcontinental opinion in context with western views without removing or judging the Indian/Pakistani opinion.  NJW494 15:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NJW, you can give hundred links from hundred different language wikipedias; we all know most of them just happen to be translations of this one. I do agree that many users of world history are accustomed to the word 'Mutiny'; definitely lot more than 'War' in context of 1857 rising. However, the simple reason for that is that most written reference originated from the military of victor country. That does not by default legitimise the word or description as the sole authorized one. This is as simple as Saddam hanging or Afghan War or Custer's fall. This is also as simple as Mittal's Arcelor takeover, or Bangalored factor in US. It all depends on, which side you have been taught or shown. It could be good to keep editing to what you think is right; but do note that it is Indian History; probably better be told by Indian perspective (now that it is 21st century and Indians know how to read and write and talk globally). Since you insist on reference game, here are some 'external' links to show that the other sentence is also viable OUTSIDE Indian subcontinent.
* Marx, Karl &  Freidrich Engels. The First Indian War of Independence 1857-1859.  Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1959. (The only outsider who was probably not a party)
* J.W.Kaye, History of the Sepoy War, (3 volume history, London. 1876). 
* The Sepoy War of 1857: Mutiny or First Indian War of Independence? 
* This is someone in US: Maj (Retd) AGHA HUMAYUN AMIN from WASHINGTON DC gives a brilliant analysis of the 1857 War of Independence(The Defence Journal - December 99 - Chapter Five: Development of Situation-January to July 1857) 
* Library of Congress Country Studies (US) also recognizes the factThe uprising, which seriously threatened British rule in India, has been called many names by historians, including the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857; many people in South Asia, however, prefer to call it India's first war of independence. 
Open the page titled Sepoy Rebellion in there
Also just to give you some insight on one of the western descriptions of foundation of what you call Mutiny: The profound hypocrisy and inherent barbarism of bourgeois civilization lies unveiled before our eyes, turning from its home, where it assumes respectable forms, to the colonies, where it goes naked. Did they not, in India, to borrow an expression of that great robber, Lord Clive himself, resort to atrocious extortion, when simple corruption could not keep pace with their rapacity? While they prated in Europe about the inviolable sanctity of the national debt, did they not confiscate in India the dividends of the rajahs, who had invested their private savings in the Company's own funds? While they combated the French revolution under the pretext of defending "our holy religion," did they not forbid, at the same time, Christianity to be propagated in India, and did they not, in order to make money out of the pilgrims streaming to the temples of Orissa and Bengal, take up the trade in the murder and prostitution perpetrated in the temple of the Juggernaut? These are the men of "Property, Order, Family, and Religion." 
-Karl Marx, The New-York Daily Tribune. 22 July, 1853.
(These sentences also found way into the book I mentioned above)
In lighter vein, somewhat similar adamance on part of East India Company was responsible for that mutiny also.
--Bobby Awasthi 13:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just one more insight. I followed the Link One you gave which refers to the so-called rebellion. The final link opens the following page: PRINCETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Guide to Selected Special Collections Sections from Economic History to George, Stefan / Sections from Economic History to George /  . Probably you know this, or else you would have given the direct link to the Sepoy Rebellion page which would have opened what I just mentioned. I see that your inclination is more to win than to argue and justify. :)
Also on the Columbia Encyclopedia evidence, the same encyclopedia has accounted for the life of Warnet Joseph Wolseley as follows:
Warnet Joseph Wolseley, 1833–1913, British field marshal. He fought in Burma (present-day Myanmar; 1852–53), the Crimea (1854–56), India (1857–58), and China (1860). Now you may want to call it Myanmar Mutiny, Crimean Mutiny, Indian Mutiny, and Chinese Mutiny :)
--Bobby Awasthi 13:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  NJW, I honestly don't give two fu..ks about your 48 hour deadline. A consensus was reached after much deliberation. What's this whole "cooling off" period all about? None of the languages you mentioned are an official language in India. On the other hand, English is an official language. Besides, why has the British Govt. not objected to India officially calling the series of events - The First War of Independence. Well, they aren't even objecting to India officially celebrating its 150th anniversary. Why is that? They did object to Iran denying the holocaust - did they not? Really, you need to get over the fact that Britain is a has-been nation with little or no relevance in today's world. The sooner you grasp this grain of truth, the easier it will be to digest facts. (Jvalant 18:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My recent edits 

message: Perhaps I'm showing my ignorance but isn't "First War of Indian Independence" kind of an oxymoron?  If it were truly a war of independence, there wouldn't be a 2nd, 3rd, etc. War of Independence.  Just my two cents worth...
NPOV patrol 01:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you knew Indian history you would have not talked like an oxymoron. In its technical meaning if you call anything a war, there are only two of them, the first world war and the second. If you call it a war the way war is seen by most of 'humans' even the 1942 'Quit India' or many other such episodes will qualify for it. However, your two cents worth knows only a war which had bombs and bullets and corpses. It would be too much to expect you to understand that war is not always 'War of Worlds' it may also be 'War of Words'.
--Bobby Awasthi 16:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name clarification 

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

message: From what I understand, the title of the article is the most commonly used name describing these series of events? So why isn't it War of Independence? That is by far the most common name. (Hanuman420 19:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before - please see the above dicussions on the naming controversy.  From what I can see, "Indian Rebellion of 1867" seems to be a neutral compromise. +A.0u 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of Independence 

message: "Chapaties and Lotus Flowers began to circulate around large parts of India, quoting the famous line "Sub lal hogea hai." (Everything will become Red.), passed around by people from town to town and village to village, as a symbol of the prophecy and a sign of the coming revolt." -- A chapatti is a flat bread. I don't understand how a chapatti or a lotus flower could quote anything. I assume that this means that people circulated chapattis and lotus flowers and ciculated the quote as well, but this really isn't very clear. What part did the chapattis and lotus flowers actually play? -- Writtenonsand 23:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the quote was passed along by the people who were passing the chapaties and lotuses.  Role? Nothing much other than serving to rally the population, give them a heads up that a mutiny was brewing. Kind of like old scottish highland chieftains sending around a burning cross (Crann Tara) to rally their clansmen to war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hserus (talk • contribs) 07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Chappatis are Indian food, and the lotus is the national flower, both thus exclude the British. As a statement of commensality and nationality without overt religious context, it is fairly clear. Its meaning at the time, and the extent to which it indicated opposition to the British, has been set out in some texts that I've seen before. Imc 08:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapattis / lotus flowers / quoting famous line ?? 

message: # Many princes and maharajas did not participate in the rebellion, and those that did were basically interested in reviving and reclaiming their own principalities and fiefdoms, not in creating a United India;
# The Army and the Princes, who were the principal instigators of the rebellion of 1857, played no part in the Nationalist movement as it emerged in the 1880s;
# The Westernised intellectuals supported the British; however, an exception to this rule was Azimullah Khan, a Westernised rebel supporter.
Where are the sources which point to these alleged facts? Or are these points merely the product of a very fertile imagination? And what exactly is a "westernized intellectual"? Besides, the Bombay naval "mutiny" proves that the army did indeed participate in the Nationalist movement, as do soldiers of the INA who moved from the British to the Indian side. I shall be deleting the points, unless someone proves otherwise. Thanks. (Jvalant 09:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those deletes would be just as short sighted and ill advised as the rest of the edits you've made in this document so far, so I'd advise you - dont.  As for the bombay naval ratings mutiny and indian soldiers who ere Japanese POWs joining the INA, that was in the mid 1940s, almost 90 years after the events of 1857. So what you cite is not valid here, or relevant to this discussion at all. srs 10:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Debate over national character" section 

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

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

message: Please don't delete the quotes. How are they irrelevant? (Jvalant 20:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in the edit histoy "What someone said at the time of the rebellion [,in a section] on the current name of the article is irrelevent". --Philip Baird Shearer 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Debate over name of conflict

message: Jvalant, are you sure it it right to delete the reference to Nepal as you have just done? The Wikipedia entry for Nepal says "The Ranas were staunchly pro-British, and assisted the British during the Sepoy Rebellion in 1857 ..." which would suggest that they were involved in the rebellion. For you to say as a justification for the change that "(Nepal is a different country - removed irrelevant point)" cannot be entirely correct. True, Nepal is a different coutnry (and had retained autonomy even after the Anglo-Nepalese War (1815–16) but to say that their involvement in this event is "irrelevant" cannot be correct. If it is a fact (and it seems to be so) that they participated on the British side then it is right to include this information. They are part of the events of 1857 which is what this article is about. - Dave Smith 20:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Likewise, I believe that the reference ought to be restored. The paragraph in which it was placed referred to the Bengal Army as an institution, of which the Gurkha regiments were part, rather than India as a national entity. Gurkha troops played a vital part in the Siege of Delhi; indeed, without them, the British may have been forced to abandon the siege, with incalculable effects. HLGallon 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have just tried to put things in right perspective. I dont know how relevant, but since it is felt that Nepalese Army contribution should be there, I have mentioned it. Personally, I feel it should be there in the retaliation section or wherever we are covering the British recovery; not where we are discussing the causes of that mutiny or rebellion or war.
--Bobby Awasthi 09:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps you are correct that mention of Gurkhas ought to be moved to the aftermath or recovery; but it must be emphasised that they were not part of the Nepalese Army; they were part of the East India Company's Bengal Army. (A Nepali contingent of c. 9000 did participate in the later Capture of Lucknow.) HLGallon 10:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course, if the Nepalis were part of the WOI on the British side, I don't see any hitch in mentioning them. However, to club them together with "punjabi irregulars" clubs them together with Indias. They are a different nation; just make sure you make that differentiation clear. Jvalant 18:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll give it a try. The Gurkhas were indeed "under contract", but were administered and equipped by the Bengal Army. Since they fought, I believe they deserve mention. HLGallon 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your latest edits (HLGallon), make quite some sense. Gurkhas are mentioned but not as Indian Army constituents, which they became only after the rebellion was over. The issue is sorted for the time being. Now can we go back to the original question which even you agreed? The particular information (who participated on which side) should not exist in a section where we are discussing "Causes of rebellion". --Bobby Awasthi 02:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Nepal]]

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

message: Read: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks with special reference to the following statement:
But if you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else – especially attacks directed specifically at users – detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here.
Also pay attention to the fact Wikipedia:No personal attacks also includes:
Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. 
Please stop this. Your comments are based on... and possibly by..., possibly overlaid with... but not on actual understanding of Wikipedia motives. Please read Wikipedia policies carefully and please start contributing on original article rather than assuming the role of disciplining me. I am sure I dont need to speak on behalf of Jvalant or anyone else because I do not assume he or others are absolutely at the mercy of my intelligence like you just did. Let the readers decide what kind of a knowledge seeker would make comments like Neither of you has any capability to distinguish fact and fiction, discussion and vitriolic abuse I am delighted at your judging capabilities. Go and sit in one of those courts in your locality. This is a place which seeks humble contributors not governors.
--Bobby Awasthi 18:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Hserus|srs]]

message: I am sure this editor deserves a loud thanks for doing a great job in the article so far. I have seen the edits word-by-word (to be honest I feel, any edit on this article automatically raises suspicions on either side of the arguments :) and I am sure we all would agree to the fine copy-editing of such a contentious literature. 
Thanks once again,
--Bobby Awasthi 06:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by [[User:HLGallon|HLGallon]]  

message: 1. British were the Oppressors, akin to Nazis in Germany
: Non-Indians may disagree with this, but if you have not studied the negative side of the British rule which we do study here, let me assure you that the comparison is quite close. The English Queen had problems apologising for the Jallianwaala Bagh Massacre (one of the single largest massacres of unarmed citizens) even in 1990s.
2. This was OUR WAR. So, WE DECIDE the name - Just like it was not the "American Mutiny" in 1775, it was the "War of American Independence" or "The American Revolutionary War".
3. We know it as the "First War of Indian Independence", so that is the name to be promoted, and the others should be discouraged.
: Just like people in a country / city decide what should be their name.
4. If the outsiders know it by some other name, they should learn this one and identify it as such, not as a mutiny.
PS: All the above comparisons are completely justified. I don't know about people from other countries, but the British still do not tell their kids that they did things like Jallianwaala Bagh massacre in India. And they did plenty of similar acts of oppression on a smaller scale.
And if you still believe in the "White Man's Burden", I can just smile at you.
-Abhishek, Delhi
:: Excellent point Abhishek. The Nazis infact were Buddhist monks compared to Brits. 5 million killed in 1943 alone thanks to the Brits in the Bengal famine. The rations given in British "relief camps" to the natives were less than those given to prisoners at Nazi concentration camps like Buchenwald. They conducted experiments on the poor souls to see how much could the natives work on the least amount of nutrition provided. We all know about Champaner. I too believe the name should be First War of Independence. I wonder what the process is to change the name. Perhaps someone can guide me. Jvalant 19:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One would suggest you hurry over to (or create) "Indo-pedia" where you can give vent to your Indian nationalist world view (hurrah to free speech) without those other pesky English speakers offering dissent. 81.23.56.7 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  One would suggest you scurry over to (or create) "KuKluxKlan-pedia" or "Britopedia" where you can give vent to your imperialistic world views (hurrah to free speech) without those other pesky amd better English speakers offering dissent Jvalant 09:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the Name should be the "First War of Indian Independence" 

message: I'm sure there's a reason for this, but massive parts of this, if not the entirety of the article, are identical, and may constitute plagiarism to an article on the Sepoy Rebellion on Answers.com. This needs to be addressed. I have provided the link to the Answers.com article for comparison. http://www.answers.com/topic/indian-rebellion-of-1857-1
:Actually, Answers.com and some other sites directly use Wikipedia content. If anybody's plagiarizing, its them (but they are not, if they are just following GFDL). Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 05:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers.com 

message: Watching this discussion, I am going to point interested readers, to other perspectives from an Indian POV.
Being a bit of a history bluff, I could not help but reflect on my own evolution of  a different perspective over the years. In school, I was taught this was a Mutiny by some 'native' infantry, caused because soldiers were being forced to use  pork and beef fat laden cartridges, by some native infantry, which was eventually quelled.
One discovered  though, that there was however another stream, that never seemed to go away, and this was, the historical accounts and historical literature in the Indian Languages- primarily Hindi.
These were accounts of the widespread uprising, in the land between the Ganga and the Yamuna areas, the area that today is known as the Union Territory of Delhi, Haryana, and Western Uttar Pradesh – effectively an area within a circle with a radius of 200 miles from  New Delhi.
This was an area, populated by a people who did not submit to the foreign Islamic rule, and fought it continuously since its advent into the Indian Subcontinent, and were never quite subdued. 
They owned their land, governed themselves in their villages with elected councils, and which villages were part of a hierarchy of other elected councils, known as a Panchayat- ‘council of five’. At the apex, the region was governed by an elected council.  They ran a government parallel to the Muslim Mughals Government at Delhi, and fought with that power continuously.
When they went to war against the British, it was not to bring Bahadur Jaffar Khan back to the Throne, but to throw off the British yoke.
They had their own resentments, one being that the British had put their ownership of the land, and their livelihood in jeopardy
The New East India English Company and its systems did not sit well with these freeholders/farmers.
TAXES
The British  introduced a system for payment of tax in coin, not kind. They needed cash, and to obtain cash, forced them to sell their harvest to the class of traders and moneylenders to obtain cash to pay their taxes. These taxes were collected by much used of force.
JUDICIAL SYSTEM
The British Court system replaced the traditional system of Justice, the Panchayat system, where the council of five settled disputes and dispensed law, with their own Judicial system.
Under the British Court system a farmer could lose his land for non payment of taxes, and this could and did often happen even without his knowing what had happened.
This was done with in collusion   between the British administrators, and corrupt native lawyers, traders and moneylenders,
Dr Rajendra Singh[1] writes
“These people were   those,  whose   basic daily two meals, obtained after  much hard work, were  been snatched away by the British and their puppets; they were those who had no outlet for their grievances, and  they were those, who lands were being auctioned  off, by the British " Courts of Justice",  in favour of the moneylenders. Even some of the British acknowledged that" they picked up arms, because they British burdened the Jats with more taxes, than those imposed on farmers of other communities" [H.M Elliot: Meerut Settlement Reports, P.18.]
SOLDIERS
Many soldiers were recruited from these people into English Company’s s army from the farming communities of the North. They were designated as being one of the ‘Martial races’. They were mostly however simple farmer boys who joined for a square meal and some adventure. Their communities had however long fought foreign rule, and maintained their Republican system of society.
In 1857 this system was still alive and well, and in North India particularly modern Haryana and Western Uttar Pradesh was known as the ‘ Sarv Khap’, made up on individual ‘ Khaps’- units of 84 villages.
See: 
www:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khap
These soldiers or Sepahi (Sepoys) as they were known fought against their own countrymen for the English.  However at times even their tolerance for what they were doing, would not stand the injustices and they would rebel.
“These simple farmers and their families would, in the interest of their daily survival, in every step, ignore the insults of the British. Their tolerance would still give way sometimes.”[1]
There were plenty of mutinies or rebellions among these soldiers.
Dr Singh writes [1]: 
“In 1839, in the first Afghan war, dissatisfaction spread among   the army, the majority of who were Jats,   led by General Polk the British officers came to know of this, shot and executed two Subedar (sub officers) one Hindu and one Muslim, claiming them to be the leaders of the dissatisfaction... The soldiers held their peace at that time, but later on not receiving their pay, the dissatisfaction again arose. General Polk, in order to persuade the troops to cross the Indus River, paid them their back pay and special additional pay. The troops who followed later, took this additional pay as their basic right, and in 1844 the 34th native regiment and three other regiments refused to cross the Indus River without this additional pay. The 34th regiment was sent to Meerut, where the weapons were taken away from the soldiers and the regiment was disbanded. The dissatisfaction was being spread a few Jat and Gujar soldiers, who were educating their fellow soldiers, of how the British were establishing their new laws and dispossessing the farmers of their hereditary lands. [8]. 
 
In 1849, in Punjab, the occupying army revolted. In Wazirabad this mutiny was stamped out, but in 1850, in Gobindgarh the soldiers revolted and attacked their officers. General Napier was successful in quelling the mutiny.  95 soldiers were given various punishments, and the regiment was disbanded. The disbanded soldiers, before returning home were given their full back pay by General Napier. Governor Dalhousie was upset by this act of General Napier, and took him to task, upon which General Napier resigned from the Army.’ 
These rebellion/mutinies continued right through into 1857, when the soldiers in Meerut rebelled, and that sparked the conflagration of 1857, which is called a mutiny by some, a rebellion by other, and a war of independence by others.
The “Spark” was just a spark, and had been put down before.
What was different this time?
Thought should be given to what else was occurring, and why the entire region around Delhi- Western U.P, Haryana, arose to oppose the British with violence and arms.
Why would these people tilling their land,trying to survive,raise their families,  arise as one, join in the war against the British, and give up their lives?
They can hardly be called mutineers!
They had no call of duty to the British, they were not in their employment or service, nor were they being paid by the British?
To suggest they arose to bring back an Islamic power- the Mughals, whom they had fought tooth and nail over the past centuries,is again not very convincing!
Nor can it be suggested with rationale, that they arose to protect the pension of some far off  ruler of a petty princely state, or to suggest that they would give their lives to support some far off petty princeling, who was being disposessed from his/her principality(e.g Jhansi) by the British?
What did occur was there was a groundswell of opposition to the British, and as it rose to its crest, various groups came together for their own motives, united as one,the main objective being , first,  to get rid of the British and secondly to settle their own affairs among themselves once the British were gone.
Of interest to History buffs,  may be Bahadur Zaffar Khan's speech and letter, from the Sarv Khap archives:
 
From the book by Dilip Singh Ahlawat [2]
“ 4.4 THE SPEECH OF EMPEROR BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR TO  1000 MEMBERS OF THE HARYANA SARV KHAP.
'''
On June 6, 1857 the Emperor gave a speech to the assembly of the Haryana Sarv Khap. 
He said:
" Leaders of the Sarvkhap Panchayat!
Take your warriors and throw out the foreigners. You have brave and capable leaders. In my Shahi (royal) family we have young men, but they have never smelt the smoke of gunpowder. 
 
The British army has many times seen the strength of force of your young men. Today it is a matter of polity that the leaders should be of a royal family.
 
Yet today the Nawabs and Rajas have fallen. They have accepted slavery to the British. 
 
The nation had faith and trust in you. Come forward and throw out these foreigners. 
 
On their removal a durbar (Court Assembly) shall be held, and the Panchayat shall rule and manage its own affairs. I have no objection"
 
From the records of the Haryana Sarv Khap as recorded by Mir Mustaq Mirasi.
 
4.5 BAHADURSHAH ZAFAR'S LETTER TO THE SARV KHAP.
 
Of Historical interest is this letter from Bahadur Shah to the Sarv Khap
 
 
"It is my request to the Pradhan of the Haryana Sarv Khap, and to each person who resides in this nation of Hind, that after taking back our nation from these foreigners, a Panchayat of capable and skilful leaders be called. The nation should be entrusted to them.  A national panchayat for the entire country should be formed on the lines of the Sarv Khap Panchayat, through that the country should be governed. I shall give all my authority to that Panchayat with pleasure"
 
By order of Bahdurshah Zafar, Badshah of Hindustan, July 1, 1857 
The Panchayat continued to gather its marital strength.” [2]
The brunt of the war was borne by these simple freeholders around Delhi. When the war was over, there was retribution- the British and their Indian allies (the soldiery provided by the feudal Jagirdars (Rajas) of Rajasthan, Punjab (Sikh states of Nabha, Patiala, and Jind) and Nepal (Gurkhas), carried out the British orders and destroyed their way of life.
Their story also needs to be included!!
For further reading see:
See:
[1]1857- Jats and the 1st war of Independence Dr Rajendra Singh
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/message/4458
 
See also: for a lengthy analysis
[2]Extract from the book by Capt Dilip Singh Ahlawat “Jat Viron ka Ithihas” Acharya Press, Rohtak, India, 1988
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/files/
1857war.doc 
Indian Independence war - 1857 or see
The 1857 War of Independence
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JATHISTORYBOOKS/message/8
 
Ravi Chaudhary
Ravi Chaudhary 17:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A fascinating contribution. No colonising force has ever had it easy and the British were no exception. What this contribution highlights is that history is a process and historical events do not happen in a vacuum. This certainly adds weight to the argument that the 1857 uprising was essentially a continuation of ongoing resistance. Similar chronicles of struggle and resistance can be found throughout history and as far as the ”British Empire” was concerned, there is plenty of evidence of opposition throughout Africa, the America's and New Zealand where the Māori's gave the British a very good run for their money. - Dave Smith 18:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All the more reason to change it to First War of Indian Independence. Jvalant 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it has the potential for doing much more than that. I've just glanced again at the article and it seems to me we should start thinking about putting it into the broader perspective that is raised by this contribution. In fact, earlier on this Talk other examples were given to resistance before 1857 and maybe we could have a section putting this 1857 uprising in that perspective. There could be a brief paragraph and then a link to a new article which could cover all the whole question of resistance. This could be called (and I am being brave here because titles of articles seem to cause plenty heated discussion) something like Indian Resistance to Colonialism. Just food for thought. - Dave Smith 03:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: I think this article should be Renamed to The First War of Independence.
--Rsrikanth05 15:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ha ha - no shit. Most people visiting this article seem to think so. Certain imperialists are dead against it. But don't worry, it shall eventually change as more and more people come in. Jvalant 15:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: You should take care of your language. This contributor is only 13 years old. - Dave Smith 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. Though the title "Indian Rebellion" is much better than "Sepoy Mutiny" or "Indian Mutiny". I believe its in the continued interest of the ex-imperialistic countries to perpetuate the fad that the notion of modern Indian nationalism did not pre-date the British Raj and its the Raj that brought the concept of Nation state to the sub-continent. If the 1857 event were to be accepted as a War of Independence by the British, then it would automatically undo the positive legacy of the British Raj on the colonized uncivilized natives of the subcontinent.Though, the War of Indian Independence did not have all the classic characteristics of a Independence War it sure had quite a bit of it.For people who don't agree that it was an Independence War, I would like to say this. The British refer to the 1776 event of the American Revolutionary War as the American War of Independence. Why ? Is it because the American's won the war and became independent ? The outcome was a loosely federated 13 colonies and yet its called the American War of Independence.While in this case, the war was lost and not only that, the loosing side was non-white. I am sorry, but the color difference stares at us. After all, history has been color filled for a long time and still continues, though in other more subtle forms.--Eshwar 06:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is your explanation for the reversal of names over the Irish War of Independence/Anglo-Irish War (1919-1921) --Philip Baird Shearer 11:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then the so called Indian Mutiny should be renamed as Indo-British War or Anglo-Indian War of 1857.--Eshwar 04:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that by definition a War of Independence needss to finish with someone being independent of another. The 1776 business ended up with Americans (American colonists) having politicla independence from the original colonising power. GraemeLeggett 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  Not really. Where'd you get that from? Jvalant 07:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd say that without meaning to cause offence Rsrikanth05 is rather too young to have any reasonable place in a heated debate such as this.  My position remains that the 'Indian War of Independence' is a gross distortion of historical events, as is teh term 'Indian Mutiny'.  The current title is neutral, and doesn't reflect deluded Imperialist, or rabid Hindu-nationalist points of view.  Quite right too.  For anyone I've failed to respond to in the last few days I would like to apologise, my spare time has been curtailed of late. MrChile 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to - The First War of Independence 

message: I am too busy with a project and will be so for another month from now but I do read once in a while. I think the debate is going in right direction with position attitudes appearing on both sides of late. As far as the players are concerned they will never change.
Thanks guys,
--Bobby Awasthi 07:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apologies

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
Indian Rebellion of 1857 → First War of Indian Independence — Proper title per WP:UE. 
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
As nominator I support the move as I think that "rebellion" or "mutiny" is but a British pov which distorts Indian history. Jvalant 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose  Biased and POV.  srs 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Any additional comments:<noinclude>
* I would draw the reader's attention to the following comment made by User:Jvalant above:
*:"I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested Move 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
*Oppose  Biased and POV.  srs 03:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Any additional comments:<noinclude>
* I would draw the reader's attention to the following comment made by User:Jvalant above:
*:"I see why "Indian Rebellion of 1857" can be intepreted as a neutral title. However, I would prefer the "War of Independence" - but that would be too much of an Indian POV - so this neutral title is currently serviceable. (Jvalant 14:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Jvalant with reference to your use of Vandalism in the edit history, and reminding you that on 30 April 2007 I wrote
:Jvalant, with regards to your persistent use of the word vandalism in the edit history for good faith edits, (last one 17:25, 30 April 2007 Jvalant (Talk | contribs | block) (59,837 bytes) (Reverting Vandalism),) please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not and Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal".
I would ask you to read them and reconsider if the use of the word vandalism is appropriate description for good faith edits by other editors that you persist in using in the edit history and used again today:
:22:19, 2 June 2007 Jvalant (Undid revision 135328360 by Philip Baird Shearer " Reverting Vandalism)
--Philip Baird Shearer 23:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's obvious that your edits can't be construed as being done in good faith. And we already had a discussion about the use of Hindi in the opening line, stop vandalizing the opening paragraph over and over again. Jvalant 03:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not I who "shifted the combination in a way that the hindi words became orphaned" I shifted the ordering to "Indian Rebellion of 1857", "Indian Mutiny", First War of Indian Independence (Hindi:FWI). If the Hindi is to be included in the introduction then it should go at the end of the clause for #Aesthetics. -Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  What's wrong with freedom fighters? It's been agreed that First War of Indian Independence is a legitimate title. The people who fight for independence are known as freedom fighters. Jvalant 20:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Extremist, terrorist and freedom fighter --Philip Baird Shearer 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: "It's been agreed that First War of Indian Independence is a legitimate title ...". I think I must have missed something here. Didn't we have have some sort of survey on this issue which decided that the best title for this article was the current one? - Dave Smith 20:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ooops. I meant, it's been agreed that the WoI is a legitimate POV. And people who fight in a WoI are known as freedom fighters. Jvalant 03:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: OK. But your own logic defeats you here. When the name is changed to WOI then using the term 'freedom fighters' might be more appropriate. But until then ... - Dave Smith 04:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  WoI is still a legitimate PoV used in the opening para and also in the infobox. What are you talking about?? Jvalant 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I was not commenting on the description of this event but merely the name it is known as, which is what this first paragraph is about. I've made a small edit to the main article to which keep both Indian Mutiny and Sepoy Mutiny to reflect the point I was making. This should be acceptable all round. - Dave Smith 10:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Because there was no mutiny in the first place. It was a war of independence. If it was pan-Indian by people from walks of life other than soldiers then the word "mutiny" is not applicable as it applies to people who are in the service of a government or a ship. However, if you think there was a mutiny then it was only a Sepoy Mutiny, not an Indian one because ALL Indians were never in the employ of the East India company. So you think we should discard the term mutiny completely?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by  Jvalant  (talk • contribs) 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a bit academic now as the amendments I made have now been changed. But you are jumping all over the place. This first paragraph wasn't discussing the nature of the 1857 event but simply giving some of the names by which it is commonly known for the benefit of readers looking for information about this subject. It is a simple fact that many readers will know it as the Indian Mutiny. That is not a comment on the semantics of what is a 'mutiny' or whether calling it an 'Indian' Mutiny implies some sort description of the scale of the event. As we can see from the continuous debate on this page, many people, particularly in the Indian sub-continent, call it the WoI. The point I was making about the word 'Sepoy' is that it is not a word that is in the commonly vocabulary of in much of the English speaking word.  - Dave Smith 03:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The use of vandalism in the edit history

message: I think the word tolerated though literally correct, is a potential ignition point of future in the sentence... In the early years of the Company rule, the British tolerated and even encouraged the caste privileges and customs within the Bengal Army,. May I suggested accepted instead? Bobby -- 12:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Accepted" looks fine to me. utcursch | talk 05:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes - Summary style 

message: What does everyone think about the removal of this historically suspect phrase?  I'm considering removing it. MrChile 14:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL, and I guess the Brits are fair and square; still carrying the white man's burden I see. :) Jvalant 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: May I ask why the article is being tagged with  when most of the editors who commented on #Requested Move find the current title acceptable? The article should not be tagged as POV-title just because a few editors who supported the failed requested move don't like it. It has been explained in detail during the past discussions as well as the current Request Move that the title "Indian Rebellion of 1857" is neutral (unlike "Indian Mutiny" or "First War of Indian Independence").
I think I've made enough efforts to start a constructive discussion, but this doesn't seem to be going anywhere. It's better to go for informal dispute resolution. What would the editors concerned prefer, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Request for Comment? utcursch | talk 09:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for constructive remarks, Bobby. I agree the article is messed up and needs a lot of cleanup. Jvalant, are you OK with replacing  with ? I don't want to indulge in any revert wars, as they create a hostile environment. I hope everybody will agree that the current title is a good compromise. No title will ever be considered 100% perfect, but the current title is not as imperialistic as "Indian Mutiny" and not too nationalist (like "First War of Indian Independence"). utcursch | talk 10:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, it's fine Jvalant 17:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: At the same time, no one should let lose the I think... variety of editors, to start editing (read deleting) wherever they find historical facts of transgression, and masquerade camouflage attempts as NPOV issues. I suggest we strictly follow a rule that any change on article has to be discussed and agreed first here on talk page. --Bobby Awasthi 17:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of the article