Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 5

message: And welcome back!
I am referring to the reporting on RFAR.
==== Statement by srs ====
Earlier (wrongly) placed on Arbitration Enforcement, I am still something of a newbie to Wikipedia AUP enforcement.  Re-pasted this request below.
Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.
Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.
Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm
nb: One of the parties in this request has just been banned for a week - User_talk:DemolitionMan#Blocked_2 - for persistent violation of WP:3RR and history of disruptive editing, including confirmed (checkuser) puppeteering.
srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HO HO HO HO HO! 

message: Earlier (wrongly) placed on Arbitration Enforcement, I am still something of a newbie to Wikipedia AUP enforcement.  Re-pasted this request below.
Tendentious editing by multiple editors - User:Bobby Awasthi and User:DemolitionMan who continue to bring a hindu nationalist NPOV into the article. Edits by others are greeted with abuse (DemolitionMan loves to call me a "janitor", because, well, I'm an ISP postmaster), or summarily reverted, with 3RR skated around by tag team editing, or in the case of User:DemolitionMan by creating sockpuppets, for which he was banned for a day and his sock perm-banned some days back.
Mediation has failed - Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-10-15 Indian Rebellion of 1857 - a mediator, User:Phoenix-wiki has recused himself and suggested that the case be taken to the arbcomm.
Case accordingly placed before the arbcomm
nb: One of the parties in this request has just been banned for a week - User_talk:DemolitionMan#Blocked_2 - for persistent violation of WP:3RR and history of disruptive editing, including confirmed (checkuser) puppeteering.
srs 15:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by [[User:Hserus|srs]] 

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

message: As there was significant (and indead a total) change in the political structure of India post mutiny I question the pharse
 'status quo ante bellum' 
As the result, this is clearly not the case. Not only did company rule end (and direct British govenemtn rule being) but a number of native rulers were reoved from even their token positions. [[Slatersteven 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: As there was significant (and indead a total) change in the political structure of India post mutiny I question the pharse
 'status quo ante bellum' 
As the result, this is clearly not the case. Not only did company rule end (and direct British govenemtn rule being) but a number of native rulers were reoved from even their token positions. [[Slatersteven 22:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results 

message: request. Please delete claim that this was the worst genocide in history, as it is patently false. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 20:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't claim that it was the worst genocide in history. It claims that if a particular estimate of 10 million killed is accurate, then it was the worst genocide in history. Od Mishehu 08:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just out of interst has anyone read the book in question? If not should we be including it? Ralph Ralph 11:22, 5 November 2007 (IST)
When the statment was added (And I belive that the situation has not changed) the book had not been published. The statment was based on a review/criteque from the Guardian newspaper (from I presume pre-publication publicity). [[Slatersteven 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  requested edit 

message: But as there is no attempt to claim... 
'- For example, in October, 2006, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Indian Parliament said: '
... that this person is an historian, it makes it clear he is only a politician then the reason for its deleation seems to me to not be justified. [[Slatersteven 14:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate to say this 

message: Err, my history is a bit rusty, but I believe that Bangladesh and Pakistan did not come into existence until partition. Ordinarily, an article about an historical event uses place names that were in existence at the time of the event. I would suggest that using Bangladesh and Pakistan is inappropriate - perhaps there exist contemporary names for those areas that could be used? Ronnotel 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps Undivided India, including parts of modern day Bangladesh and Pakistan will do? srs 03:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of 1857, doesn't the term India pertain to all of the areas in question? Perhaps the underlying link can be to Undivided India. Ronnotel 19:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Somethings gone a bit wrong in the opening para of the article.  Stray gallery tag, seemingly misplaced potted history of british rule.  Could someone who knows whats going on in general on this page please fix as its a bit confusing (and obv a mess).  I'd try and sort myself but clearly there are some editors looking afer the page so I'll leave to them.  Just flagging up :-) Sassf 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a crusade and the opening paragraph is now turned into spoils of the war. Please see last three sections below to understand, and may be contribute. The discussion is more or less one-sided and you may not see it last long before a so-called APPROPRIATELY NEUTRAL administrator bans the only other person saying what you just said. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats going on in the opening paragraph? 

message: I want to question the use of word Arson in the opening paragraph of the article in sentence The first signs of brewing discontent, involving incidents of arson in cantonment areas, began to appear in January 1857. since the definition or motives on the page for arson itself do not correspond to the motives implied by this article. 
Arson, in general, is the crime of setting a fire for an unlawful or improper purpose. Motives listed on that article are Vandalism, Domestic Violence, Revenge, Forest Fire (man-made) & Political. A rebellion/mutiny/revolt/war of independence is NEITHER. It could have been political if the events happened AFTER India had some political grouping presence (which started only around 1890s). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO "Political" is a fairly broad church. Also IMHO the listing of motives for arson is, well, odd, and inevitably incomplete - what about, for example, financial? (which is probably one of the most common motives for arson) Do similiar lists appear for murder? Tomandlu (talk) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: As far as your question about financial motives is concerned, it is covered in the very second sentence of the Arson article. The motives of arsonists vary. The possibility of financial gain often drives arsonists to file fraudulent insurance claim after setting fire. And yes a simmilar and even broader list of both motives/reasons and exclusions for defining it as a Murder exsits on that page. And however much I agree that political is really a broad term, the issue here is political and cantonment dont really go hand in hand.--Bobby Awasthi (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The third paragraph cites vandalism as a reason for arson and later it suggests political reasons too. But the whole article is largely unreferenced. I think the general assumed meaning for arson is "deliberately setting fire to things that aren't yours". GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: or "deliberately setting fire to things that you own, have insured and are losing you money". Oh, and your definition would need to include "without the consent of the owner" (I gave someone a light for their cigarette the other day - I think legally I'm in the clear :) Tomandlu (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I dont THINK ABOUT IT when I write here. I need to see facts and show facts. It is pretty clear to all, that the word arson has a broader meaning; which MAY or MAY NOT be applied to those cases mentioned on the page. We dont even have facts/references which say the events were direct precursors to something big. They could have been simply fires ignited for personal reasons by individuals. In any case, is there any information that the number of such cantonment fires rose significantly higher after JAN 1857 compared to preceeding years? --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Section on fires at Ambala added, with citation. (Unfortunately, no data on fires before 1857; but the fires that year were obviously noteworthy). HLGallon (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: "Given that the British were already dying, it defies logic as to why Nana Sahib would offer a safe passage and then order the alleged massacre."
Is this a verifiabel fact or an opinion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk(Slatersteven 15:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the term 'Mutiny' is not racist, just wrong.Rsloch 13:20, 14 October 2007 (BST)
Jvalant - please take that cactus out your bum - its making you very aggressive still...oh and please don't say Britishers - I now find it racist and offensive (Indian). I was just talking about how we referr to a race of people (even if you think they are Nazi's) - would you like it if we starting calling Indians "Indies" or Indjuns (also very american). Try and think about the context - this isn't a discussion about the title of the article its about the language we use in this article. Its an English language article so it makes sence to use correct English or American English terminology. Thanks for your understanding.  [Pagren 07/09/2007]
Thanks - I would have forgotten to take the cactus out of my bum if not for your supportive words. Now read this - 
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060906/139/67bgd.html
http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dict&freesearch=britisher&branch=13842570&textsearchtype=exact
Infact run a search on google for the word "Britisher" - it has never been used as a slur unlike Injuns. And Indian English terminology would be more appropriate for an Indian history article. Jvalant 10:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reading the cited text over and over, I realized that it meant They just object to anything not spoken by Themselves. They stands for Brit___s (please fill in the blanks as per the side of bed you woke up today.) --Bobby Awasthi 10:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: I've undone a revision that basically stated that the Sikhs couldn't call the 1845 action "The First War of Indian Independence" because it wasn't "India-wide" (oh, the irony). If people are uncomfortable with the current version and reference to the 1845 conflict, can it be discussed?
I agree with you Tom and I support you. Your edit seems pretty much required. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree - people are quite at liberty to call 1857 TFWII - they just can't stop others from calling the 1845 TFWII. We're not saying what it is, we're saying what it's called. What it is is a serious of historical events. War and mutiny are essentially abstracts for describing a series of events, not the events themselves. I'm drunk and filosophizing... Tomandlu (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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