Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 4

message: 86.156.251.135 had added that the conflict is known as "Indian Mutiny" in rest of the world (except India). Subsequently, Jvalant changed it to reflect that the event is known as "First War of Indian Independence" in rest of the world (except Britain). I've removed this "rest of the world" phrase. Most of the non-Indian and non-British sources use neutral terms such as "Uprising" or "Rebellion" (eg. Encarta). As for the disputed title message added by Traing, it has been discussed in Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 2. utcursch | talk 07:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Rest of the world" 

message: Not exactly a formal term appropiate for an encylopedia. When did it spring up in the infobox?
GraemeLeggett 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure whether "press-ganged" is an encyclopedic term or not, but I've removed it anyway, since not all the princely states that sided with the British were press-ganged. utcursch | talk 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Definitely not appropriate for an encyclopedia, it was inserted by one of those sock puppets in the Indian side and then shifted by Jvalant to East India Company side with appropriate arguments(see archive 2). In any case, Wikipedia being a mere majority viewpoint, and not an encyclopedia; I am sure there are many who will say it was a word to be input into Indian side. User:Bobby Awasthi 13:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Press ganged" 

message: Given that the aproved way of loading the cartidge was tearing not bitting the top off the use of the nlater as an explaination (in part for the mutiny) seems to give a ratehr biased view.
"Rebellion" not "Mutiny" please. The main point of view is that weather or not the cartridges were greased with cow and pig fat, the Sepoys believed they were. When the company authorised them to tear rather than bite this just seemed to prove their suspicions. [Pagren 11/07/2007]
The comapny did not authorise it, it was the ofical practice within the Britsh army as a whole, it was not a concession to the mutinous Sepoys (by the way I will choose to refer to it according to how I wish, as I do not tell you how to name it I would request the same respect back). The implication in the article does not make it clear it was a rounour not a fact that they had to bite it. (SS)
the text says
 'To load the new rifle, the sepoys had to bite the cartridge open.' This is not true. (SS)
SS, If you look into the archives of this discussion page you will see that lengthly arguments have ensued after the conflic was fleetingly referred to as "Mutiny" or "War of Independence". Its probably best we don't start repeating these arguments. For the time being it actually looks as if we can all move forward and perfect the article. Perhaps you didn't see the word PLEASE after my request. If you are unhappy with that passage in the article please change it. But I'm pretty sure British troops bit the cartridge ends off, and didn't tear it with their hands. The reasoning behind this is that when you're getting vollys of shot plying into you you dont want to be fiddling about with a bit of paper. Biting the cartridge was quicker and easier to drill. [Pagren]
I have to admit error, I was working from post Mutiny drill, the pre-mutiny drill book clearly says Bite.
Why has part of the last line (including the ID of the sender) been deleted? [[Slatersteven 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cartidge 

message: The artical seems to imply that the British were first to commit atoricities (stating that earlier reports of Muntinner attrocities at merrut) were 'wild rumour' Offical figures say that One invilid sugeon 4 male civilains 8 women and 8 children were killed. It seems therefore to me to be rather biased to imply this is a wild rumour.
Official figures from the British East India Company or the British Government? A very neutral source indeed.... Jvalant 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre 

message: The troops of the besieging force proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens were slaughtered in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian 'collaborators' that had been killed by the rebel Sepoys. This seems to imply a difference between what the British and Mutinous Sepoys did, surely slaughtering innocent civilians is the same regardless of nationality? it should thus read 
The troops of the besieging force proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens were slaughtered in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian 'collaborators' that had been slaughtered by the rebel Sepoys. (SS)
In a war, people or soldiers are KILLED. After a war, CIVILIANS are SLAUGHTERED. It is not TOO difficult to read. --Bobby Awasthi 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  slaughtered 

message: Siege of Cawnpore seems to be the next battleground of "rebel" vs "freedom fighter"GraemeLeggett 15:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  argument revisited 

message: While I can understand Jvalant's arguments, as well as the arguments made by other editors, I as somebody is fairly neutral came to be a bit dissapointed by the way the article goes about stating "Indian patriots", Indian "Collaaborators", "Savage Sepoys" etc etc. It is important to note that these inarguably satisfy the following quoted section from the weasel words clarification;
and 
We have a section in this article that deals with how the mutiny/rebellion/war forged a national identity and is still considered important in Indian History today for this matter, and no, it is not propaganda, it is how it is percieved in India, so to those who will make an opposing argument, please consider the opposing PoV and perception before editing later sections that deals with these issues of modern day India and the mutiny. As for editors (including Jvalant) who see it neccessary to point out that it was not a mere mutiny, and that there were local support involved, and that it is percieved as a defining and distinguish event of the Indian independence movement, please do so in the relevant section. In the mean time, again, avoid weasel words on part of both PoV editors. As for the title of the article, we have had offers from differnt quarters earlier this year and last, a number of them an "accurate description" of the events of the uprising. I really think we need to reach a consensus and stop haggling on what seems to me  (I am an Indian) to be petty issues that irritatingly diluting the encyclopaedic and factual description of this very very historical and notable event. Rueben lys 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel 

message: The rebellion now spread beyond the armed forces, but it did not result in a complete popular uprising as its leaders hoped. IS there a source for this? (SS).
I personnaly have no idea where it came from but why does it matter? 26/08/2007 Flaming Scimitar 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it self-evident? If the rebellion had turned into a "complete popular uprising", the British would have been thrown out of India in jig time and Indian independence would have occurred in 1857 instead of 90-odd years later.--Oscar Bravo 09:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah... The original question is ambiguous. I thought the OP was asking for sources that confirm that the rebellion didn't become a complete popular uprising. But now I see he was asking for sources that confirm that the "leaders" hoped for such an uprising. That is far from clear. In fact, I remember reading that someone (Lord Clyde?) writing after the dust had settled that the British were lucky that a strong charismatic leader did not emerge on the Indian side. Had an Indian Napoleon appeared, the British goose might well've been cooked.--Oscar Bravo 08:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rebellion now spread beyond the armed forces, but it did not result in a complete popular uprising as its leaders hoped. 

message: It has been writen in a number of histories of the Mutiny that Pandey was high on Opium and Bhang (and that he addmited this), why therefore is this not mentioned and been removed.
NUMBER OF HISTORIES... first of all there is only one history, maybe you meant number of accounts. Still, it is a very generic statement, can you please enlighten us with some NON-BRITISH accounts which state so? Seems you are more concerned with the respect that one individual is getting, irrespective of whether it was on accidental reasons or intentional. --User:Bobby Awasthi 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement of General Hearsey himself, an eye witness to part of the events, after describing how he induced the quarter guard to advance on Mangal Pande by threatening them with his revolver and how Mangal Pande was finally overcome after attempting but failing to take his own life, ran, "I then went, accompanied by Major Ross and my two sons amongst the crowd of sepoys ... [I also told them that] they had not done their duty in allowing their fellow soldier, Mungul Pandy (sic) to behave in the murderous manner he had done. They answered in one voice, 'He is mad, he has taken bhang to excess' ". At his subsequent court-martial (less than a week later), Mangal Pande stated, "I have been taking bhang and opium of late. I was not aware at the time of what I was doing". He was repeatedly pressed by the prosecuting officers for the names of those who had induced him to mutiny, but he insisted that his actions were his own, and unconscious. The matter is probably impossible to resolve. Mangal Pande may indeed have been doped, or he may have prematurely tried to rebel before his comrades were ready, and afterwards concealed the true cause of his actions to prevent his fellow soldiers being implicated and undoubtedly hanged. All quotes here from Christopher Hibbert, The Great Mutiny, , p.70  HLGallon 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mangal Pandey 

message: British nationalists (whom Indian might see as racist) claim
This seems to be very provocative, ad un-balanced especially when compared with the line. 
Indian nationalists claim
This seems to give a different emphaiss on the two sources. Can this plesase be alterd to a more nueyral wording (such as taking out (whom Indian might see as racist)).
Why don't YOU change the wording in the article to make it more neutral rather than list everything here as this will only trigger off some of the more Nationalistic of those here. It is obvious the article has plenty of weasel words in it and this will continue as it always has. [Pagren 16/07/2007]
Pagren, your suggestion is against the official Wikipedia policy, Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment. Also, when considering edits, be sure to check the discussion page to see if there are any open or closed discussions on the area you were about to edit. [] It seems you are just getting too sick of Nationalists to follow the policies anymore or is it so that you are not liking others disputing and arguing?  Bobby  19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Purely as an aside: references to the revolt being confined to "Bengal", might mean the "Bengal Presidency", one of the three administrative divisions into which the East India Company ordered India. The Bengal Presidency spread from the North West Frontier Provinces in the west to Assam in the East, and Kashmir in the north to southern Bundelkhand in the south; over 1000 miles by 500, embracing many different religious and cultural groups. The only homogenous bodies in this area were the East India Company's administrators and the Bengal Army. HLGallon 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reversion of User:Jvalant's edits - poorly attributed with dubious sources cited, highly POV and ungrammatical. Hence reverted. srs 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance on sources. 

message: Hindi newspapers are not a valid source according Hserus.  And why are the contemporary articles not valid? I'd rather trust current sources than Victorian sources still carrying the white man's burden. Jvalant 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re: I believe that wikipeida also asks that source should be in preferably in English; I havent found any such rule or policy anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:RSUE clearly says the following:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.
Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.
Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:
Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.. In case of most other language newspapers referred or cited (by me and Jvalant); the qualification of them being mainstream is met with the fact that both 'Dainik Jagran' & 'Dainik Bhaskar' have a readership 10 times greater than the best selling English Newspaper of India (Times of India)  plus TOI is not even published from those cities where these papers are read (the cities which lost prominence after independence like Jhansi, Kanpur & Barrackpore, too important on this article though). Remember the highlighted assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality which in this case there is none. That is probably the reason for your non-acceptance of most citations and references. The situation is further worsened by certain chaste secularist /communist fly-by-delete editors from India  with their personal agendas of becoming icons of Indian Modernity. --Bobby Awasthi 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindi Newspapers 

message: the Indian troops overrun the base and continued their advance. I was not aware that the British troops in Merrut wre overrun (and by implication wiped out, or at least driven from thier positions. In fact I seem to remebr readinf that there was in fact no significant millitary action as the British did nothing. SS August 25, 2007
My understanding was that the British garrison was just extraordinarily slow in reacting, they were not overrun (the women and children were overrun and massacred but not the troops) - but there was an engagement between the british garrison and the Mutineers as they were leaving for Dehli. From what I remember reading the British withdrew and let the Mutineers leave because they still weren't sure what was going on at the time. I'm sure over half the Dehli Siege force was made up of the meerut garrison - dead people don't tend to be very good at laying siege to cities lol ;o) [Pagren 07/09/2007]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The overrunning of the Merrut Garrison 

message: http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2155324,00.html
Hopefully, this books will shed more light on the chain of events. Jvalant 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who present claims so outside the accepted narrative must back them up with a lot more than this author has.Rsloch 13:20, 14 October 2007 (BST)
By the way, what was the population of India at the time? [[Slatersteven 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Book 

message: "In any case, as with the Bibi-Ghar butchery, the carnage that followed was entirely within the powers of Nana Sahib and his associates to prevent."
What's the proof of this? And Hserus as far as my contributing "half-baked history" is concerned; I don't care much what a janitor thinks - why don't you stick to your janitorial task of cleaning inboxes? Jvalant 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bib-Ghar 

message: Regarding comments made by several editors in this page There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. 
Some suggestions:
* Discuss the article, not the subject;
* Discuss the edit, not the editor;
* Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
* If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NPA|No personal attacks]] 

message: I wonder if this can be added 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7014281.stm
Jvalant 07:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  About how strongly people in India still feel about the First War of Indian Independence. DemolitionMan 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As unbiased as contempary British sources. If the grandchildren of the Nazis went to Auschwitz or any other concentration camp to "commemerate" the Holocaust, the reaction from the Poles wouldn't have been any different. CaptainNemo420 05:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is that different from the grandson of a Nazi wanting to visit the grave of his grandfather in Poland? Both Poland and India were illegally and unethically occupied by foreign nations. And there is nothing wrong in comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich - if you read Mein Kampf, you will realize that Hitler wanted to follow the British Empire blueprint for his Third Reich. DemolitionMan 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current situation 

message: Awesome  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.100.111 (talk) 15:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  best ever 

message: Is there a reference for it always being called this in India?
Indians I know refer to it as the sepoy rebellion generally- a far more neutral term and more fitting with the standard Indian view of British rule (pretty honest and balanced without too much nationalism tacked on)--Josquius 15:52, 28 Septembe
No. In India it is generally termed the First War of Indian Independence. Jvalant 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In Indian high school textbooks you mean, which get edited and re-edited depending on the POV of whether the Congress is in power - in which case more left wing JNU historians get to have a say, or whether the BJP is in power - when right wing historians have something to say.  Nowhere else. Citing a newspaper SOLELY to show popular usage - this is a story in the Times of India about an old tortoise's death.. "Tortoise that saw Sepoy Mutiny" dies.  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1461641.cms .. various other news sources / articles, and colloquial usage in several languages calls it sepoy mutiny, not war of independence.  So, I am afraid your contention isn't valid if you simply cite POV ideas of political correctness srs 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how many newspapers term it as War of Independence? Are you saying - using the "War of Independence" is solely done by the alleged "right-wingers"? That surely explains the statement mentioned by Somnath Chatterjee in this very article - doesn't it? What you been smoking? I want that shit. Jvalant 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This article puts "war of independence" in quotes (like that) and then proceeds to use the words mutiny throughout. Jooler 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A few searches of the Times of India site seems to suggest that the words "war of independence" is used with roughly equal measure with "Sepoy mutiny" and "Indian mutiny", but such contextless searches prove nothing. Jooler 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of independance? 

message: How many freaking times have we discussed this? The current box presents a completely NPOV - if "War of Independence" is considered one of the legit names, then surely "freedom fighters" is as well. Look at this link 
http://www.indianpost.com/viewstamp.php/Alpha/M/MANGAL%20PANDEY
If the British Govt or its citizens had or have a problem with the likes of Mangal Pandey being called "freedom fighters" - how come they don't make it known to the Indian Govt? 
It's not as if I am putting in the British combatants as terrorists or invaders. However, if push comes to shove, I am willing to do that as well. 
DemolitionMan 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Go ahead. Do it. It will simply get reverted and the article tagged NPOV. What's new?  Take it to the arbcomm, be my guest srs 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not yet. I don't go bitching at the slightest provocation although I am quickly reaching my threshold point of exasperation. DemolitionMan 14:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbcomm has been bought over? I am not as sure as the one inviting. Jvalant, I would strongly recommend you dont reach the threshold. There are reasons: This deleter (I wouldnt call him editor/contributor for obvious reasons) may have realized recently that he has already added on to his long list of misconduct and violations of quite a few policies of Wikipedia (I wouldnt list them until he goes to some admin or arbcomm on his own, for obvious reasons). Now an easy way out for him is to instigate you and change the whole scene. He has not YET bothered to go and read the hundreds of words wasted by both sides in reaching the current infobox and has behaved in a typical TENDENTIOUS and DISRUPTIVE EDITOR style but to pick from the article of which he is the self-acclaimed owner,""Our creed does not permit us to kill a bound prisoner", one of the matchlockmen explained, "though we can slay our enemy in battle." A serious contributor would prefer to be a matchlockman who was quoted by a British prisoner even after he lost, than to be a Gulab Singh whose only effort to earn his throne was to ditch his creed. --Bobby Awasthi 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: User:DemolitionMan aka User:Jvalant - you forgetting to login to wikipedia first?  srs 10:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits from 203.123.144.131 

message: WP policy states that:
:the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"
Since an infobox by definition doesn't allow for X says Y format, the term should not be used here. The term can be incorporated into the text if supported by a reliable source and phrased appropriately. I have protected the page for now to give parties a chance to cool down. Ronnotel 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough. The word "Patriot" carries no such baggage and hence as I offered earlier, can be used as a compromise. DemolitionMan 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. It is a case of the NPOV vs your personal POV. In the Bangladesh War of Independence Mukti Bahini, directly meaning "Freedom Fighters" are listed as combatants, in the Greek War of Independence Greek revolutionaries are listed as combatants, in the Ecuadorian War of Independence the combatants are listed as Patriots, Venezuelan War of Independence lists the combatants as Patriots, Turkish War of Independence lists them as revolutionaries. Stop pushing an imperialist agenda of a has-been nation on Wikipedia. DemolitionMan 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is quite a few examples. Does User:Josquius have something to say about it? Oh - and what's with the sockpuppet complaint? More than 1 person can't disagree with you? CaptainNemo420 05:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  LOL. And how conveniently you skipped the term "patriots" extensively used. And where did you pull the stupid definition of "revolutionary" from? Here is the definition 
1.      of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta.
2.	radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.
Hence, we can remove the term "freedom fighters" and put in "Indian patriots" and "Indian revolutionaries". CaptainNemo420 09:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:EXTREMIST]] precludes ''Freedom fighters'' as used 

message: A forthcoming (as of August 2007) book by Amaresh Misra estimates that the number of people murdered by the British in retaliation for the rebellion was 10 million. His calculations are based on triangulation of several different sets of records. If Misra's estimate is proved correct, this was the greatest genocide in history, worse than the Holocaust or Stalin's purges. Other historians have questioned these figures suggesting that the total includes refugees (as the figures are based on regional depopulation figures) and famine (a not uncommon occurrence in India at the time).(Guardian August 24, 2007 India's secret history: a holocaust)
Please provide a source that claims these mass killings was a genocide. Some might argue that holocaust and genocide are interchangeable and that the Guardian use the word holocaust. 
But there are several other points on this particular entry:
* To be a genocide there has to be intent to commit genocide, and the proportion killed must meet the "in part" requirement.
* WP:Undue weight: One historian publishing a book on such a controversial issue, does not provide evidence that a consensus is emerging among historians to revise the historical consensus. 
*Also the sentence "If Misra's estimate... is unsourced and is WP:OR until sourced. 
G.I Bob 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaliation 

message: I added "British Victory" into that and it was taken out...why? It was a British victory wasn't it? I am a registered user but I don't have time to log in right now 213.218.232.4 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: Now that the protection is removed. We are back to square one. I wonder is Josquius is the same as NJW? How do I check that? He seems as adamant to promote the British POV over the neutral one at all costs. 
DemolitionMan 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a case of British rule or Mughal rule, not at all indicitive of a freedom fighter never mind proof. --Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure there, she clearly says the people of Oude. I don't care though so assuming you are right: how on Earth does this make this woman a freedom fighter? It doesn't even hint as such never mind being definate proof of it.--Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ...? So...Someone likes religion? And? Again that's quite irrelevant--Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back