Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 7

message: I was watching all the 'mistakes' of umpires and the 'racist slur' of Harbhajan (not visible against a clearly constant movement of Symonds' lips though) in today's news highlights across all Indian channels. And I was watching certain flag bearers of diplomatic policies trying to justify all this in sports spirit. All of a sudden this page and the edit history danced before my eyes. 
There are certain editors from cities where Dainik Jagran or Dainik Bhaskar are considered non-Indian entites, the same cities where chief ministers suggest ruining a fragile ecosystem just to prove a certain God was farce. These editors would give their own blazing logics to score brownie points against their compatriots to please their supremacist masters. 
 
Then there are certain editors who have only one point to prove. 'They', 'them' and 'theirs'. Basically, from the family of such supremacist masters of has-been countries - albeit hiding behind other country's flags.
Then there is a simple rule, majority POV is the NPOV.
Then there is a simple logic, majority POV is what the supremacist masters have been feeding for centuries.
In the end, still heartening, and suggestive of the line of action to be taken here as well, was the result of opinion polls on that cricket match. 97% Indians suggested India should leave Australia tour in the middle until it really seemed like cricket. 97% logically brained Indians have already left this page. If the last one trying to be Mahatma Gandhi may also please leave, we would have the kids play all by themselves. This page will ultimately look so lovely that Gunga Dins will also be ashamed, if they have a clearer idea of their origin or ancestry, that is (which collectively become history). 
Jvalant, there is no point trying to play cricket against a team comprising of players, umpires and match referees. All we have to do is, boycott so the world realizes. Now it is up to you, to either behave the way most Indians feel, or the way BCCI finance department wants it to feel.
Bobby  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.53 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is posted here to ensure that others who innocently come here under the Wikipedia policy of Assume Good Faith get a chance to read the issues raised here, and think twice before wasting their time thinking their contribution would stay on this page at all, unless it suits BRITISH POV or lets say, Saul David's POV. --Bobby Awasthi (talk)
They can read the talk page, without referance to cricket, or Australia (neither of which are related to the Mutiny). They can then judge the arguments (and the sources) to determine which 'fact' they belive to be the best supported. They do not need to have any errors (or POV lies) pointed out to them if they are obviously so wrong that to proergate them will even cause thier supporters shame.[[Slatersteven (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I am waiting for DemolitionMan to go silent and then they would be removed, under some pretext or other. Anyways, half of them have been either removed or diluted with weasel words. If anyone compares the current version with history, it would be all too obvious. Bobby Awasthi (talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.42.21.61 (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  This goes back to the heart of the debate unfortunately. Both of you (Steven Slater and Jos) think that you are sticking to the NPOV but carrying on with the basic assumption that the British Empire was a force of good. Similarly, both Bobby and I think we are sticking to the NPOV but carrying on with the basic assumption that the British Empire was a force of evil. Hence, the comparison with the Third Reich. Admittedly, there are pros and cons to the British rule in India. It is natural for the ruler to remember the good that came about from the Empire; similarly it is easy of the enslaved to remember the bad that came about. India might have been a bunch of kingdoms constantly in-fighting and bickering had the British not come around to fill the power vaccum after the Battle of Panipat. It might have also been able to unite if a leader like Asoka, Akbar or Shivaji been around. We will never know. However, at least in modern times, the scope and scale of the past oppression is decided by the oppressed and not by the  oppressor. The British will think of the Railways, the abolition of Sati, a British education system - Indians will think of the Bengal famines, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, the hanging of Bhagat Singh, the death of Lala Lajpat Rai etc. DemolitionMan (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similarities between the recent edits on this page and Australia - India cricket test in Sydney 6th Jan 08 

message: What do we mean by areas in revolt, just those towns and villages that rose up or larger administrative areas where at least some revolt occurred? [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilians 

message: Hi,
There was an edit done by User:Yuslo on this page, need a peer review of those edits.
Chirag (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a review of edits by Yuslo 

message: Is the calim that the Punjab remained quite due to a better understanding of the benefits of British rule (which seems to be the claim made in a recent edit) backed up with any sources? [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there is any truth to that and I've never seen a source that makes this claim. Punjab had been added to British India fairly recently and the Sikhs in particular were still bitter at the role of Hindu kings in their defeat and so they fought on behalf of the British. The Sikhs were on the forefront of the sack of Delhi and revenge was their main motivation. That's the accepted wisdom anyway. I doubt if six years was long enough for them to have concluded (rightly or wrongly) that British rule was better for them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Any assertion is hard to disprove but this one seems particularly unlikely. There just wasn't enough time for the Sikhs to have drawn any conclusion about the goodness or badness of EIC rule. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that (1) they would not have been eager to see a powerful Mughal ruler in Delhi given their history with Aurangzeb; and (2) they were mad at the various Rajput and Pahari rulers who had sided with the British against the Sikhs during the Anglo-Sikh wars. Unless a source is forthcoming, I'd say that any statement about the Punjab 'desiring the benefits' of EIC rule should stay on the talk page and not in the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Seems fair to me, but the article should also mention that the Sikhs may have wanted to teach the Sepoys a leason[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siking the truth 

message: Someone has changed "In Britain" to "Outside India". I would like a reference from the all the countries who are bonafide members of the U.N. to ascertain this. If not, I shall be removing it shortly and reverting it to what it was. DemolitionMan (talk) 04:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd change it back. As it stands, the text reads 'In India', 'Outside India', and 'Other parts of the world'. Seems to be a POV change.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over name of conflict 

message: I have filed an RfC on DemolitionMan's continuing disruption on this page. All are welcome to comment. Ronnotel (talk) 18:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DemolitionMan|RFC/DemolitionMan]]