Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 → Archive 14

Enough is enough with "First War of Independence"

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

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

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

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

and here is what it says about the definitions:

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

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

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

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

Really? Here is the book chapter from the Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and guess what it is called? Great Revolt of 1857. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Is Tamil Nadu the only state in India? DemolitionMan (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The sad thing is that I didn't know anything about secondary education usage in India, while both user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione were claiming "backyard rights" to that knowledge (i.e. it is happening in my backyard and we know it). Well apparently, they don't. It is clear that "First War of Independence" is not used by all high-school students in India. user:DemolitionMan and user:Desione can carp all they want, but they don't have statistics on their side. As has already been acknowledged, the expression "First War of Independence" is used in India, but, as the above links also amply show, it is not exclusive usage, indeed it is not even clear if it is majority usage. I think the statement, "The rebellion is also known as the Indian Mutiny, Great Rebellion, Sepoy Mutiny, Revolt of 1857, and predominantly in India, First War of Independence (with link to the (term) page)" is a fair description of the current usage of the term. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh give me a break. Here is the 10th grade social science book from the same Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu and guess what the third chapter is called: "THE FIRST WAR OF INDIAN INDEPENDENCE (GREAT REVOLT OF 1857) — END OF EAST INDIA COMPANY’S RULE" [1]. Plus a history syllabus from state of Madhya Pradesh in both English and Hindi and guess what its called here "First War of Independence" again! [2]. Desione (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
And what do we have here [3]. A writeup on "First War of Independence" from public relations office from north-eastern state of Mizoram. Wow! Desione (talk) 07:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Am glad you called Fowler's bluff. He's been lying for a while now. As can be seen from all these links - Mutiny is never mentioned. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
That this title needs the qualifier (great revolt of 1857) I'd think would more prove the point that it generally isn't called the WOI- this book (a social science one, not history) is feeling the need to make a point that the rebellion was like a war of independance, its fully accepting that it wasn't actually called this.--Him and a dog 13:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

And this is from the Missouri Southern State University "The next few pages deal with British mercantilism and warfare and conflicts in India between England and France. Under the sub-heading "The Indian Revolt," the first sentence reads, "India in the mid-1800s presented the strange spectacle of a huge land, with millions of people and an ancient civilization, controlled by a foreign commercial corporation." Once again, according to the textbook, India is somehow out of sync with the rest of the world and a "strange spectacle." The Mutiny of 1857, or the First War of Independence, as it is called in Indian and Pakistani history textbooks, and which..." from "Teaching South Asia" Link - [[4]] Apparently, everyone except Fowler&Fowler are Indian POV-pushers. DemolitionMan (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Asia society: "Asia is also portrayed through Western eyes. Only one out of seven widely used textbooks examined points out that the war the British call the Sepoy Mutiny is called the "First War of Indian Independence" by Indians" Link - [[5]]

Telegraph: "Just back from Meerut where I've been observing a rally to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the 1857 Rebellion - or First War of Independence as it is known in these parts." [[6]]

Madhya Pradesh: "Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan has urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to ensure that Class X social science textbook replaces the term '1857 Mutiny' with India's First War of Independence." [[7]]

Anthropology of North-East India: Textbook - [[8]]

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

Gujarat: What students are taught -

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Refero - Here is the policy text

The key principles in summary are: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May I suggest that one name we could call it by may be the "Great Tragedy of 1857" as to be honest, neither side (British or Indian) came out of the conflict with even a shred of honour considering the atrocities and acts of wanton destruction carried out by both sides.

Any attempt to call it by any other noble name be is "Mutiny" or "War of Independence" is downright shameful in my book and may the ghosts of Meerut, Cawnpore, Jhansi and Gwalior haunt you to your graves!

Now cease this petty bickering and nationalistic showmanship. Just agree that the whole affair merely exhibited the lowest animal instincts of man, regardless of colour, religion or nationality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.144.225.140 (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


Given its sheet scale - can we then merely call it "Greek Tragedy of 1857"? Would the Greeks objects? :) - Jokes aside - there is a case for both names - Mutiny as well as a War of Independence - since a neutral encyclopedia can't give one view precedence over another - the current name should suffice. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cawnpore (again)

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

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

Time Line

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

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

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

Indian rebellion book by V.D. Savarkar

Two editors have reverted the edit I made adding a dismbig link at the top of the article to a 1909 book by V.D. Savarkar. After the first revert I undid it leaving an edit summary indicating I believed it courteous that I be informed if this was being undone. A second editor undid it with what I thought was a very poor argument (as was the first). Wikipedia editing guidelines tells us to build the web, and the book itself has some significant history to it. Moreover, and very importantly, it shares the name that a large number of Indians use todescribe the event (I am not going into the right and left discussion of wether that's right or wrong) other than WP:DISAMBIG indicates that such a link be added. As such I honestly cannot see what problem there is with having the dismbig link there. I really appreciate it if the courtesy was shown to a. inform me if this edit is undone, and b. a strong argument was made not to include this link. Otherwise I'll be forced to assume that such an edit is the result of misguided good faith or bourne out of proprietary motives. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 00:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of what you propose is to link to an article with the same name as this article.

One, this page is headed (after much debate) the 'Indian Rebellion of 1857' not 'The Indian War of Independence', and if you search for 'The Indian War of Independence' you get a disamg page that links you to this article or the book (or now the term).

Two, if we keep the link shouldn't we open the floodgates for Saul David's and Malleson's 'Indian Mutiny', Innes' 'The Sepoy revolt', or the thirty plus books that have titles in a similar vane? Or are you suggesting Savarker's book deserves unique treatment?

Three, the issues around nomenclature are discussed in the article.

Thus there is no need for what you have added, and it just makes thing (more) messy.

rsloch (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (BST)

I was not aware of the existence of these books, so I see what you mean by floodgates. Having said that, do these books have articles on them? V.D. Savarkar's book I believe has a significant history to it, not least for its virulence and the impact it had on the Indian extremist movement. (The article is not complete, and I am working on it). I definitely think a link should be added, not just to this book, but perhaps a seperate section of cultural references or some similar "see also" section on literature or commemoration which should be a desirable addition to the article. rueben_lys (talk · contribs)
Many books have been written about the rebellion and many commentaries have been written about the books themselves (all the way from Kaye and Malleson's history to Dalrymple's The Last Mughal). If you add a disambiguating link to one book (ignoring, for the moment, the difference between the title of the book and that of the page), you'll need to make a very strong case that that particular book title is equally, or nearly equally, identifiable by the common English speaking person. Or, to frame it another way, if you walked up to people and said "The Indian War of Independence," enough people would wonder whether you are talking about the war itself or about the book by Mr. Savarkar. Of course, in this case, even the titles don't match so there is no need for disambiguation at all. --Regents Park (sink with the skaters) 14:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with RegentsPark. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You haven't commented on addition of seperate section for cultural references or commemorations etc. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


There is a section dealing with works on the subject, as well as a large list of sources for the article, I fail, to see why this is not sufficiant. Also may I ask who created the article on the book in question? The book under discusion was writen in 1909 was it not, the commemeration was in 2007 (and I presume one in 1957) I again fail, to see the link.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I dont see this section, unless if the articles loading wrongly on my computer. The book article was created by myself, I fail to see why that is relevant. The book is relevant to the article, as is as any other notable work or commemoration of the event, because it completes the article by giving literary, artistic and social references and interpretations and the infleunce that the event had on subsequent history. Most if not all history articles usually have similar section I believe. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 9 The 150th anniversary This section need expansion, but it is there. A section about the commemorations.
  • 10 Notes
  • 11 References
    • 11.1 Text-books and academic monographs
    • 11.2 Articles in journals and collections
    • 11.3 Other histories
    • 11.4 First person accounts and classic histories
    • 11.5 Tertiary Sources
    • 11.6 Fictional & Narrative Literature A fiction section will include a cultural reference, which is what fiction is. Non-fiction books are covered in the other sections.
  • 12 See also
  • 13 External links

[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]]


Well
  • Section 9 only mentions the 150th anniversary, there's memorials to the mutiny and to the units which fought in it all over India, a statue of Henry Havelock forms one of the four corners of Trafalgar square, there are memorials to the Indian leaders all over India, the lucknow residency is one of the best preserved monuments, there's hordes of literature with references to the mutiny, not least in Conan Doyle's Sign of Four, numerous historical and fictional records of the mutiny, movies on the mutiny, cultural references to the mutiny.
  • Section 10 is notes, I dont see how that is a commemoration
  • Section 11 is references. If there is at all any commemorations noted there then it is in the wrong place.
    • 11.1 a subpart of references listing text books and academic monographs is not the appropriate section to list commemorations and cultural influences of the event.
    • 11.2 Journal articles and collections are not commemorations
    • 11.3 I dont know what other histories mean, but again not appropriate section.
    • 11.4 First person accounts and classic histories (as a sub-section of references) is the appropriate section to summarise commemorations
    • 11.5 Tertiary sources- ditto
    • 11.6 Ditto.

A reference section is for listing sources used for constructing the article, it is not considered a part of readable prose, and moreover merely providing list (if it useful) in the wrong place does hardly anything to improve the article

  • Section 12 as above
  • Section 13, external links does not make commemoration or cultural or literary influence. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 19:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Section 9 needs work, but it is a section that deasl with the 2007 commemerations and thus could be expanded. To cover all and every statue book or culteral referance could overburden the page (and trying to define significant has troubles all of its own). There was at one time a popular culter section which for whatever rason (but perhaps not un-linked to the comments above) was removed.


Having said this as the book underdiscusion is a history (so note worthy it's not even listed let alone used as a source). It's place therefore is in section 10 or 11. It is not a commemoration (except in the way that all histries commemorate an event, a very large part of the article would thus be needed (and could make it unwieldy) to cover all histories and other litteray sources. [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Section 9 only describes one "celebration". You dont "define" notable per WP:OR, nor list every known word written on the subject. It's supposed to summarise what is known or said to be notable, eg the Gwalior statue of Lakshmibai, Trafalgar statue of Hnery Haveloc, mutiny memorials in Delhi, residency monument in Lukcnow. Literary works, as I have said before notes afew as anotable, I have pointed out copnan doyle, there's also Karl Marx's interpretation, and I am sure other works.
I am getting the feeling you dont know how the notes section works. If you feel that no wikieditor having used the books as a source history diminishes it's notabillity, you're welcome to use it yourself for input. As for the book by savarkar (which was not actually the focus of my query), it's proper section is not section 10 since no notes were made from the book, please have a look at what the section is used for. The book's significane moreover is not on the historical record of the event but on the interpretations and the books subsequent influence on Indian nationalist movement and Indian interpretations of the event, as numerous discussion above have shown. But again, it is one of the quite afew notable works on the event, so it is not supposed to take a whole section by itself.

Lastly slater, my interactions with you in the last few hours suggested to me that you're still getting to ropes with how wikipedia works. May I suggest you assume good faith, and resist from making comments or edits which maybe seen confrontational (you're edit above commenting on "noteworthiness" of savarkar's book using an absurd argument is an example). Every one who works here devotes free time out of interest and without renumeration, attempting to belittle others work on lopsided arguments do little to convince others of you editorial or sholastic credibillity. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 20:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

But section 9 does describe a celebration, so the section does exist it just needs expansion. So it is not true that the matter is not present just that it needs work. To say something does not exist requires there to be no extent example. It does not describe the book in question (why is it being discussed in a section about the Indian rebellion book by V.D. Savarkar? Would it not perhaps be better to start another thread?), but then why should it the book is not commemeration (or at last was not produced specifcaly as one but as an attempt to re-dress an inbalance it the representation of the mutiny).


How do we define notable? If you start to introduce value judgments you will open up not only the problem of edit wars, but also overload the page with vast discussions on whether a given thing is notable (there is also the issue of when a thing was notable). Moreover if you decide to only list a few examples on what criteria do you base the inclusion? On fame, on number of visitors (or sales), on importance (to whom and why). Again you are then making POV judgments. Perhaps this was why the section was removed in the first place, it was just too contentious. Are you aware of how many books have been written about the Mutiny? How do we even begin to determine the notability of a book (I stand by my comment about it’s notability, it is no more noteworthy then the other works listed within section 10 or 11 with regard to the subject of this article), and its current exclusion from this article as a source does raise questions as to how many people have actually read it, which then means its place in not in this article (other then it’s inclusion in section 11) but in one on the growth and development of the India independence movement (which seems to be one of the reasons you believe it should be accorded a special place), to be included it must b noteworthy in regard to the article it is being included in at least if it is to be given some kind of ‘notable’ status above and beyond the hundreds of other works on the subject). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)}}But section 9 does describe a celebration, so the section does exist it just needs expansion. So it is not true that the matter is not present just that it needs work. To say something does not exist requires there to be no extent example. It does not describe the book in question (why is it being discussed in a section about the Indian rebellion book by V.D. Savarkar? Would it not perhaps be better to start another thread?), but then why should it the book is not commemeration (or at last was not produced specifcaly as one but as an attempt to re-dress an inbalance it the representation of the mutiny).


How do we define notable? If you start to introduce value judgments you will open up not only the problem of edit wars, but also overload the page with vast discussions on whether a given thing is notable (there is also the issue of when a thing was notable). Moreover if you decide to only list a few examples on what criteria do you base the inclusion? On fame, on number of visitors (or sales), on importance (to whom and why). Again you are then making POV judgments. Perhaps this was why the section was removed in the first place, it was just too contentious. Are you aware of how many books have been written about the Mutiny? How do we even begin to determine the notability of a book (I stand by my comment about it’s notability, it is no more noteworthy then the other works listed within section 10 or 11 with regard to the subject of this article), and its current exclusion from this article as a source does raise questions as to how many people have actually read it, which then means its place in not in this article (other then it’s inclusion in section 11) but in one on the growth and development of the India independence movement (which seems to be one of the reasons you believe it should be accorded a special place), to be included it must b noteworthy in regard to the article it is being included in at least if it is to be given some kind of ‘notable’ status above and beyond the hundreds of other works on the subject).


But section 9 does describe a celebration, so the section does exist it just needs expansion. So it is not true that the matter is not present just that it needs work. To say something does not exist requires there to be no extent example. It does not describe the book in question (why is it being discussed in a section about the Indian rebellion book by V.D. Savarkar? Would it not perhaps be better to start another thread?), but then why should it the book is not commemeration (or at last was not produced specifcaly as one but as an attempt to re-dress an inbalance it the representation of the mutiny).


How do we define notable? If you start to introduce value judgments you will open up not only the problem of edit wars, but also overload the page with vast discussions on whether a given thing is notable (there is also the issue of when a thing was notable). Moreover if you decide to only list a few examples on what criteria do you base the inclusion? On fame, on number of visitors (or sales), on importance (to whom and why). Again you are then making POV judgments. Perhaps this was why the section was removed in the first place, it was just too contentious. Are you aware of how many books have been written about the Mutiny? How do we even begin to determine the notability of a book (I stand by my comment about it’s notability, it is no more noteworthy then the other works listed within section 10 or 11 with regard to the subject of this article), and its current exclusion from this article as a source does raise questions as to how many people have actually read it, which then means its place in not in this article (other then it’s inclusion in section 11) but in one on the growth and development of the India independence movement (which seems to be one of the reasons you believe it should be accorded a special place), to be included it must b noteworthy in regard to the article it is being included in at least if it is to be given some kind of ‘notable’ status above and beyond the hundreds of other works on the subject). [[Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)]]

I am slightly lost in this huge post, but taking the jist, I must say I am getting the idea you dont really understand the difference between literature used in constructing the wikipedia article, and the what an existing literature on an event is. You dont have to use an example of the latter for it to be notable, but I dont see how I can make you see that point. As for making value judgements, that is exactly what No original research prohibits, so to help us, we have Reliable sources which should give you an idea (in addition to common sense and general knowledge) of what is notable. You have for example Commemorating and Remembering 1857: The Revolt in Delhi and Its Afterlife. Nayanjot Lahiri. World Archaeology, Vol. 35, No. 1, The Social Commemoration of Warfare (Jun., 2003), pp. 35-60". Which can guide you. Leaving Savarkar's book aside for a moment, yes there exists a thousand literature on the conflict, not all of them are notable. A quick journal search or google search or google book search should indicate to you what is and is not so. As for monuments and memorials, again the same should help. The Indian and British government's commemorations, including eg commemorative postal stamps etc are notable, famous monuments and memorials are notable, again which should be obvious. Coming back to Savarkar (and I am begining to regret having engaged you in this discussion), may I suggest you try a journal search to see wether or not it is notable instead of relying on wether some wiki editor has used it or not, and then tell me wether you still stand by your argument or not? Please note, my point is not to write a whole section on Savarkar's ardent nationalism, nationalist credentials or what have you. But I do wish to make you see that you're making a massively uninformed argument. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 18:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

My point (about the book) is that it is no more noteworthy then many other histories about the conflict, with regards to the subject of this article (the Indian Mutiny). it's influence on the development of the Indian Independence movement is irrelevant in this regard, which in not the subject of this page (by the way common sense would be OR, I am not sure what you mean by General knowledge). As to the issue of whether or not a given thing is notable in a cultural sense, how is fame obvious, does it have to be famous in one country or in all of them, or a majority (or in only those involved)? Does it have to have been famous once but not today or famous today but not heard of at the time (or both)? Now it is true that national commemorations are notable (which is already covered), but what about museum exhibits, and if we include those how big should the museum (or the exhibit) be? Moreover how relevant should it be (specific commemoration such as the Cawnpore well memorial, or more general such as Havelock’s statue, which commemorates the man not the war, paid for by his men not the state). How about comics, are we talking about popular culture? If so how relevant does the reference have to be? Do we include indirect references (those that are inspired by but not actually set in the Mutiny)? Yes I do still stand by my point; the book is no more notable then many others movement (it was not the first Indian History, it was not the first mention of the conflict as a war for freedom, it was not the first history written in a native language) except for its influence on the Indian Independence movement, which this article is not about. This article is about the Indian mutiny; therefore any culture section should be about the influence of the conflict on culture, not about how works about the conflict have influenced culture (the proper place for that is the article about the work). May I ask what is your point? [[Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)]]

My Point Slater is that it is abundantly clear to me that you do not wish to see anyother point, nor read my post in its entirity, nor checked the reference I gave for you to look up. I am not even going to start trying to explain it is not only about being first of anything. You clearly dont have a clue what you're talking about. Please do search for savarkar's book, if not in journals, at least in google books. I am also presuming you did not check the reference I gave, which I expected you to if you were genuinely interested in discussing. BTW, that was the best I can find along WP:RS. You have also convinced me that attempting explain something to you is pointless. I give up on trying to explain this to you. I will edit the article as I can in my efforts to improve it, and hopefully that will invite other editors as well. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Reuben - you are fighting an unnecessary battle here. Steven and his cronies' point is clear: if a view reflects a British mindset then it is kosher else is just plain silly native talk. Can you imagine them trying to run amok on the American War of Independence page? I think not. 220.224.108.102 (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


I must admit to being confused by the article, I cannot find a mention of the book we are discusing, what page was it on? It seems to be about statues and other solid commemorations (well actualy about the creation of a memorial landscape), but I could be wrong. Now to perhpas avoid cinfusion I shall start a new section.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)]]

Cultural Influence of the Mutiny

It has been suggested that we have a section about the cultural impact of the Mutiny. This raises a couple of points. A. This section did at one time exists (well one on popular cultural references any way), this was removed, the question in this case would be why was it removed and should it be re-instated? B. Should a section on the impact of the mutiny on society as a whole, including physical memorials. This would (it has been suggested) be a list of the most important or famous. And should this separate (or instead of) the section mentioned above or part of a general cultural impact section? There is also the point that seems to have been made that this section should include works that are about the conflict, and that have had an impact on the development of national identity. I am unsure about cultural impact sections when it come to popular culture, a separate ‘see also’ page might burden the article less, both in terms of likely debate about what should be include and also increasing the length of an already very large article with material that adds very little to understanding the conflict itself. I totally disagree with the idea that we should include material about ‘abouts’ no matter how important in subsequent (and therefore not relevant) events. [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)]

Section Commented out

I notice that there is a rather large section that has been commented out in the section "Causes of the rebellion" after the para starting Sir Sayyid's critique ... and continues for 8 paragraphs with a subheading "The Bengal Army"

Should this be reinstated - or simply deleted? 155.198.213.124 (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Governed by Britain

Please stop reverting my fixes to this part of the introduction to the article. The way it was written before it said that the way India was governed went unchanged between the end of the mutiny and 47 which is just untrue. Reforms were made including rather major ones later on that introduced a Indian parliament. This is not the article to discuss such things however to say as fact something that goes counter to their having happened is not good.--Him and a dog 19:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course reforms happened but there was never a parliament. I have corrected some spellings and let it remain though. TheBlueKnight (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

India was always (not originally) governed by the India Office and Secretary of State of India, even between 1946 and August 1947, when a provisional government was in place under Nehru. I don't think saying that suggests that there were no reforms. There was (progressively) more democracy for Indians, especially in the provincial assemblies, and the Government of India Act of 1935 did lay the foundation for the future Constitution of (independent) India, but India did not have, for example, the kind of dominion status that Canada achieved in the late 19th century, let alone having a parliament of the kind it had after 1947. I think the "reforms" part (in the lead) is a good idea, but the "originally" should go. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I just used the wrong word, parliament=assembly. I'm not claiming they were a dominion- not that that actually meant much, Canada was self governing long before that happened.--Him and a dog 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Terror and the events of 1857

There has always been attempts to justify the inhumanity of the British troops in India during the events of 1857 before it and subsequently. The justification is it was a retaliation.

The British had no reason to be in India, at least no reason to be rulers.

So the original provocation was the British presence in India. (Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC))

The British were just one of a long list of foreign rulers to control India.

[[User:Rsloch (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)]]


Of course the British had reason to be in India, there was a lot of money to be made in trade there.

As to that being the original 'provocation'...nah. Even assuming all Indians were utterly opposed to the EIC that goes back way too far. Where will it end? The original provocation was the apes coming down from the trees?--Him and a dog 16:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

The British had a right to be traders. The fact that they became rulers was and is resented by Indians. You can find a parallel in the American occupation of Iraq or German occupation of Scandinavia, Chinese occupation of Tibet etc. Yes, there was money to be made - but there was money to be made everywhere - Thailand, Japan etc. and the British did not become rulers there. Today Apple makes money around the world selling the Ipod - I don't see it occupying a country or raising an army. If it did - it would be able to make a lot more money if it could indulge in wanton exploitation - that was the case with the EIC - and Indians merely retaliated. I recommend you read "The Last Lion" a biography about Churchill and look at described conditions even 40 years after the Rebellion and that was 40 years before Independence - there was great exploitation even then. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about rights?
And no, you won't see a parallel in most of this. The only thing close is China and Tibet but the comparison there would be previous Chinese occupations of Tibet, not the current one. What they're doing now is flooding Tibet with Han and trying to make it a integral part of China which is rather the opposite of the British in India.
And also another no: apple would not make a lot of money running a country. Even the British in the 19th century recognised this, its better just to control the bulk of somewhere's buisness and industry than to go in and take over.--Him and a dog 20:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The Moghuls gave the British rights to be rulers by treaty. Moreover I do not belive (personaly) that killing women and children is ever justified, no matter what the provocation. It could also be pointed out that many Indians (at the time) were not opposed to EIC rule, many actualy supported the continuation of EIC rule with thioer lives.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)]]

Well, without getting into this argument, let me just say that even the ultimate nemesis of British rule in India didn't think that it was as simple as good guys (Indians) and bad guys (Company): Gandhi, M. K. (1997), Hind Swaraj and other writings, (Edited by Anthony J. Parel) Cambridge and London: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 208., ISBN 0521574315. Quote (p.39): "... They came to our country originally for the purpose of trade. Recall the Company Bahadur.† Who made it Bahadur? They had not the slightest intention at the time of establishing a kingdom. Who assisted the Company's officers? Who was tempted by their silver? Who bought their goods? History testifies that we did all this. In order to become rich all at once, we welcomed the Company's officers with open arms. We assisted them ... †: 'the Company Bahadur': an honorific title by which the East India Company was known among Indians. 'Bahadur' means brave, powerful, sovereign." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
We can argue the merits and demerits of the British rule till kingdom come and not see eye to eye. I read something interesting written by Arundhati Roy - the Booker Prize winning Indian author. To quote her "I'll tell you a story. After my book was published, I was on a radio program in England, with two imperial historians who both started speaking about how the British Empire was such a glorious empire. One of them said that if an alien was to come to earth, and was totally neutral, they would have to say that British civilization was one of the world's defining civilizations.

"I had never heard anyone praising the empire. I told myself, don't get into it, it doesn't matter. Then the next one started and said that 'even the fact that your book was written in English is a tribute to the British Empire'. I lost it. I said: 'That is like telling the child of a raped parent that he is a tribute to his father's brutality.' I said: 'My tragedy is that I love English, not hate it, but I will use it in any way I can against you.'"

Also, there has been a massive generational change in India and history books, movies, other outlets of information don't portray a pretty picture of the British Empire and perhaps my views have been affected by it. I am an author of fiction and my current book is set in colonial India which has led me to read a lot of material about those times from a variety of sources and the more I read, the worse I feel about some of the stuff. To quote a memorable line "The only difference between the Bombay Club and the Bengal Club was that the former did not allow Indians and dogs while the later allowed dogs." As an Indian how am I exactly supposed to feel when I read that? TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum and I got carried away - my apologies. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry that Arundhati Roy had that experience. However, she's not a historian and her assessment of the British in India is not accurate, and does not jibe with Indian historiography be it old or recent, Indian or British. The verdict on the empire is complicated; its picture has many shades of gray, and it doesn't help to paint it in black and white. That she writes in English is because of the Empire, which spread the English language to its farthest reaches; however, her prize for English fiction was not also an award to the Empire for good behavior, if that was somehow implied by her interlocutors. Sure there was brutality by the British in India, but there were also dedicated British teachers who passed on what was great in English literature (from Wycliffe, Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton to Thackeray, Dickens, Conrad, and Lawrence) to their Indian students. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If I take this logic forward. I think the following events in the history have the same "shades of gray" 1: It wasn't that bad that Blacks were enslaved and moved out of Africa by Whites. If you compare the per capita income of Blacks in US with that of Africa, I am sure Blacks in US are far richer. They also have access to better resources and got to learn English. The slavery wasn't that bad. 2: If Hitler had not started the genocide, Jewish would have never migrated to US and other countries and the immense wealth and influence and exposure to the world would never have been possible. Also genocide led to ultimate creation of Israel. Genocide wasn't that bad, if you consider all that Jews got out of it. 3: I can go on and on. I can talk about female rights in US and the caste system in India.

No one with a clear mind would agree with these two statements and the reasoning is pretty obvious. A man's institutionalized control of another based on race or gender is absolutely morally reprehensible in the modern world, no matter what. Arundhati objected because for those two English historians British Raj, seemed to be an exception.

However, this reaction by British is quite understandable. The symbol of Queen is still alive. The "glorious" past has huge significance for British identity and they are going to cling on to it as long as they can. Historians will continue to defend the act with whatever they got and the people will get defensive when talked about the morality of the act. If you went back 60 years and asked a White farmer in South of US about slavery, you would have gotten similar reaction. It takes force of a national power to push for these kind of sweeping changes. British sense of history and national pride has a LOT to lose with this admission. I am guessing another 20 years. when some of the old generation will die out and new "facts" are found. For British, the history will be distant and Indians will be too demanding. There will be occasional "deniers" but it will be accepted. Without a Wiki war :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberowl28 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


Can we actualy know which historians said this and on which radio show? Although it could be said that this authors experoance has no bearing on the idea that the British provoke the mutiny by being foreign rulers (like the Mohgals). [[Slatersteven (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)]]


Didn't we see similar posts by Desione (talk · contribs)? Compare Cyberowl28 (talk · contribs), and the "apologist" articles in both histories. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


Slatersteven, I wonder if you know about Ms. Roy. She is so far left-wing that at times you hold your head in despair. But her control and use of the English language is brilliant. Here is where i got the info from - I don't know the names of the historians on the show - http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=919555&contrassID=2&subContrassID=15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I am sorry but withour knowing what Radio show or which historians we cannot verify what they said (or what they have said elsewere). Moreover we have no context for what was said. But it seems to me claer that there was a nationalist undertone.[[Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)]]

I would just like to say that desione comparison to slavery and the holocaust are not apt. The british did not enslave the indian nor did they attempt genocide against them in fact the british were the one who emancipated india slave one of the many altrustic acts of the british which historian choose to ignore. They did organize the country economic policy with a priority to british interest but they did not simply loot the country of its wealth through imperial tax and they protected it by choosing not to allow colonist into the country to protect it from the affects colonialism had in other part of the world. They governed the country by the rule of law includeing trial by jury in most case and introduced freedom of the press even for anti-british newspapers. Finally unlike both the nazi and slaveholding south who where defeated in a fight that end with total defeat. The british gave up indian through a process of democrate impowerment and political action something that british ruler like thomas maculay who introduced shakespear and english learning said would be the inevertiable result of european value being taught to the indian but did it anyway. Now I know this is only some of the best of what the british did that sometime they suspened trial by jury or censored the press but they still there action where never comparable to the comparison you made and for that reason you can measure the good they did verse the bad because the good they did was not incidental but delibrate. Sorry for using this page as a discussion page again but I could not stand to let youre statement stand. One last thing before british rule in india it clearly was at best little better and often far worse then it was under them and far worse then it is today. Feudalism war religous persuction the oppressive caste system, but do you take youre history and say everything before 1947 bad only present good or do you recongnize you can't judge the past by standards that barely existed and instead make allowance that they were people of there times.

I had hard time comprehending your argument. My argument is this: A) The act of institutionalized discrimination based on race or gender is morally reprehensible in the modern world. B) Raj discriminated against Indians based on the tenet of European supremacy. It was manifested in the structure of government, army and civil laws. C) Thus Raj is morally reprehensible in the modern world.

Let me know where you disagree. If you can not, we should end discussion on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.2.16 (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Close

Please close this discussion, This discussion in no way is improving the quality of the article. There are plus and minus points on both sides. Thats true of all history. Please do not get aggrieved over something which has already been undone when India got independence. There is no need for anyone to justify the actions of their side also. AshLin (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. there is nothing in your comment about my argument - clauses A,B or C. I do not know what you are talking about. But I agree - close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.191.2.16 (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath and Mishra

I'm not going to revert rsloch's restatement of the Mishra book (and appreciate his attempt to find a reasonable way of framing the Mishra version) but I do think that the text still gives undue weight to Mishra's version of the reprisals. For one thing, the word 'debate' implies that Mishra's views are accepted by at least a reasonable sized minority of the historians out there, and I don't think that that is the case. It would be far better to quote other historians about the validity of Mishra's view than it is to quote his view and leave it at that. If there are no historians who give credence to the Mishra view then, IMHO, it should not be in the article. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of this "historian" until five minutes ago. I then did a Google search and found this interview:

These are gazetteers many of which you can find (Full View) on the Google Book Search! Yeah, right, "under MI6 files." What is the gentleman talking about?! I am afraid he is no historian. We are under no mandate to suffer all attempts at "scholarship" gladly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

PS He is apparently a journalist who use to report on Bollywood before he turned "historian." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Read an article about his work in Hindutan Times once I think or perhaps it was ToI. Never heard of him thereafter and certainly never seen his book at either Crossword or with booksellers selling books at traffic signals. Although I wouldn't hold reporting on Bollywood against him Fowler:) - I feel that you guys are correct in not giving him much credence as a historian. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a general agreement that Mishra's views are not even remotely mainstream, I'm going to delete the entire paragraph (the rest of the text is primarily there to frame the Mishra view). --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 15:36, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the job of an encyclopedia is to present information without passing judgment. Perhaps it could be included in the article with a caveat that this is not a traditional view of events. I say this because I did a bit of a search and it is not as if his research has been discredited. Here is an article from ToI which is the most widely circulated English daily in the world. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2110867.cms and his book has been published by Rupa & co. - one of the more prestigious Indian publishing houses - http://www.rupapublications.co.in/client/Author/Amaresh-Mishra.aspx - he is also a PhD student of History at Allahabad University and if you look at the size of the book - it is about 3000 pages - am sure a fair bit of time was spent. And here is some other info - his book being released by the Vice-President of India - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2008/03/17/stories/2008031750090100.htm - I just don't think it would be fair if you did this. TheBlueKnight (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
OK. I put it back. I agree that including these new ways of looking at the data are important. I would much prefer to see Mishra contextualized with other similar work and the way it is currently written is weak and over-emphasizes Mishra. Perhaps leaving it in will attract editors who know more about this, perhaps not. Either way, I guess we should wait for more input. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


I gave it a shot to de-emphasize him. TheBlueKnight (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned that nobody here has actually read Mishra's book and we are relying on blurbs and reviews. I'm going to remove the section on him (looking forward to being undone) until someone reads the book, then summarises his argument, with references, and preferably quotes.

rsloch (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

While there are many other reasons for removing Mishra, I think we can rely on the Guardian reference to summarize his views reasonably well (and accurately). I'm not sure if this is a good enough reason to delete the para. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 16:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
A review is an opinion not fact and thus subject to bias, error, misunderstanding, and other things that make them unsuitable as references.

But forgetting that I don't think we can ascertain the value of a controversial book that none of us has seen let alone read.

rsloch (it's a ship) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC).

Regardless, I think the Guardian can be relied upon to report the contents of the book accurately. (I'm not going to revert your deletion, but that's what I think.)--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 04:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Rani of Jhansi

In India the Rani of Jhansi is viewed as a modern-day Joan of Arc - carrying her baby into the battlefield. As is its wont, I guess there might be a bit of an exaggeration. I guess it helps build nationalism in school kids. But how do British historians view her - especially at the time of rebellion and during the Raj? And now as well - has the interpretation changed? TheBlueKnight (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

One would have to look up Kaye and Malleson for the immediate post-Mutiny feelings about the Rani, but, by 1904 when Forrest's "History of the Mutiny in 3 volumes" appeared, the Rani was quite a sympathetic figure. I don't have a copy on me for verification but Forrest's seemed to think her honorable, brave, and undone by treachery. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 14:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I just looked up Kaye and Malleson and (I'm looking at the 1897 edition but assume it isn't substantially different from the original), the Rani is quite a character. Bold, resolute, tactical, lots of respect for the lady. Wikipedia's article on the Rani is sorely inadequate. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Maza Pravas

I wonder why there is no reference to Maza Pravas, by Vishnubhatji Godse a contemporary narrative in Marathi,which contains an account of the events of 1857, in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogesh Khandke (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way should it be included? [[Slatersteven (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Well the article should carry information referenced from the book which is one of the rare contemporary Indian accounts of the events of 1857. --Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

What information does the book contain that is not curretnly in the article? [[Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)]]

Attitudes

Is the attidude of the Britsh to the issue of rape before andd long after the mutiny relevant to understanding Britians reaction to it, also what relevance do novles writen in this century have? There is no evidance that the attitude of the British regarding rape by natives affected the outbreak, nor their reaction to it (after all theere is no claim made that su8ch acts did not occour just that they wre exagerated), as such there is no reason to bleive that the British would have reacted any differantly without the pre-eixitance of the native pare scare.[[Slatersteven (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)]]


In answer to your query, here is my response

Attitudes can play a very important role in justifying war; it gives some form of moral backbone to the argument of war. Whether this attitude is right or wrong is irrelevant - the fact is that attitudes help mobilize war. Bush and co. stating that Saddam had WMDs and was planning to target the US or the communist witch hunt during the tenure of Senator McCarthy are cases in point. It is not for Wikipedia or indeed any encyclopedia to decide what is right and what is wrong but our endeavor should be to present facts and not judge them. I do not think it states that the British would have reacted differently - that is for the individual user to decide. Would the other regular contributors please respond. To the other editors, I recently met William Dalrymple at a lit festival in India - was very illuminating. TheBlueKnight (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

But it was not the British who started the war. Also as there is no attempt to say there was no rape of European women by mutineers during the mutiny the British reaction would have still be one of outrage. It was not rape fears that caused the British to fight, it was being attacked. Nor is there an attempt to remove the portion of the text that refers to that exageration of claims of rape, and their use in fuling British overeaction, just an objection to the sugestion that attitudes after (or before) the war had any real inpact on Britians reaction.[[Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]]
Ok. Can you please clarify your points above - I am afraid I didn't actually understand completely what you were trying to convey. Thanks in advance. But if I were to reply to what I think you are saying -

1. If there is an exaggeration of claims of rape, then that of course must be put. 2. No attempt to say there was no rape and hence the outrage? I really didn't understand that one.

Also, I don't think this passage is extremely important in the context of this article - it is more of a sideshow and provides some information. Let's get the input of Fowler and Regent - if in one week they've not responded to this debate then I guess you can take it out. I request you to let the status quo remain till then. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC) 


TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
1.Which was in the section I left in.

2.The section that was both left in and removed never claimed there were no rapes, just that the claims were exagerated. As such there would have still been outrage in the Briths press even without the exageration. As even the (true) rape or death of one child is enough to stir up a tidel wave of anger. [[Slatersteven (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]]

it has been a week nad no objection has been raised.[[Slatersteven (talk) 15:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]]

I think we're getting in a bit of a muddle.

Most of the reports of foreign events in the British press of the period were either reprints of articles in foreign papers, or letters sent directly or indirectly to the paper. Thus it would be these sources, not the British papers that did most if not all of any exaggeration.

[[User:Rsloch (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]]

The objection is not to mentioning exageration of rape's in the British press at the time. It's the fact that a section talked about fictional representations that had nothing to do with the mutiny. As well as the idea that the reports of rapes during the mutiny was responsilble for a wider attitude long after the mutiny had ended. Rather then being part of a wider problom with Briths attitudes towards native in generl. This cts are relevent[[~e Mutiny not the Raj, as such only the events of the mutinor its direct effects are relevant[[Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]]
I'm ok with taking it out. Whatever the British attitude toward miscegenation and the lustful native lustfulness (this article from the NYtimes makes interesting reading wrt the attitudes toward 'asiatics' during the mutiny), I don't think it has any connection with the mutiny itself, except in a WP:OR sort of way. --Regent's Park (Boating Lake) 23:01, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That is a hilarious article. "Throughout all the ages the Asiatic has been known for his duplicity, cunning, hypocrisy, treachery...." TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Devil's Wind

Are we wrongly using the term 'Devil's Wind' to describe the British retaliation when in fact it refers to the mutiny as a whole? I've skimmed through James, David, Dalrymple, and Judd using Google books and no luck. —Precedingunsigned comment added by Rsloch (talk •contribs) 15:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I found this reference which uses the term categorically to refer to the entire mutiny rather than just the aftermath. I'm not sure if the term is used enough to justify its inclusion so I'll just delete it for the time being. It can be reinstated or moved elsewhere if reliable sources are found. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The Dickens Quote

I am not sure that the Dickens quote comes from Household Words. I think it comes from a private letter. I have not been able to find such an essay in Household Words but there is an excerpt similar to the quoted passage found in one of Dickens' letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.186.50 (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

In my not so humble opinion the introduction is far too large and needs cutting down. May I suggest we remove everything below '...the Uprising of 1857 and the Sepoy Mutiny'. The remaining text is better covered in the main text.

Rsloch (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Cutting Down

The article is too long and needs cutting down. I'm going to have a go at doing it but in stages so others can comment, or undo if they think I've gone too far. I know people have spent a lot of time writing certain sections so please don't take any changes personally.

Rsloch (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Civilians

Did any Europeans civilians aid the mutineers?[[Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)]]

Yes, mostly converts to Islam. See Dalrymple, The Last Mughal p153 Rsloch (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you will find they were Eurasian, NOT European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.246.215 (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Dalrymple just describes them as converts to Islam but the sources he refs say they were some Europeans. Papers at the time (eg Ulsterman, 21 September 1857) also reported Europeans fighting on the mutineers side but you have to treat them with a plateful of salt.

Rsloch (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If a soource says X then X it is.Slatersteven (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is not the issue. The question is are these converts that Dalrymple mentions European or Eurasian something he doesn't state. He does though provide refs which make it clear they were European.

Rsloch (talk) 08:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually they were Eurasian musicians mostly from the Native Infantry Regiments - see "Our Bones Are Scattered". Those Europeans that converted to Islam were captive women who took no part int he fighting. Sadly, I think this is another case of someone watching too much "Mangal Pandey: The Rising" and taking it as fact. When natives saw white skin they didn't wait to ask if they were converts. Men were put to death usually on the spot, or taken away and executed later.

\;lets have what the source says, converts to Islam.Slatersteven (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Causes of rebellion

Where did the first two sentences of this section come from? Nothing I have ever read justifies introducing this section with comments about the Ulema.Vontrotta (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

all the controversy and contentions are cleared now, the English were outsider for India and Indians and fighting for drive out them(English)will not NOW so called- rebellion or mutiny. the english were doesn't keep passions they hangs anyone earlier than earliest, without any or less mistakes with cruelty. some invader enters your home and will you shut your mouth and put your hand together and sit, is it possible ? it was the bad result of dirty thinking of english that they are made for ruling the world. one side you are writing that Wikipedia has neutral policy other side you are writing "honorable east India co." and "Sepoy mutiny",plz refer the link below http://www.1857.in/timeline.html "Indian rebellion 1857" no one has right to insult or demoralize to Indians. Please change the title "Indian rebellion 1857" as "first Indian independence war-1857" or "Indian Revolution 1857" --Prakash gothwal (talk) 07:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that outside the subcontinent it is not called that. Even in India some question that name (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_War_of_Indian_Independence_(term)). It was a rebelion, on that we can all agree, but not everyone calls it a war of (or even first war of) independacne. So lets stick to the NPOV title.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Prakash, Steven is right. Even though most in India call is the "War of Independence" - it is prudent to keep the name neutral - there is no consensus on the term. TheBlueKnight (talk) 06:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed neutrality is important, but calling it a Rebellion/mutiny is far from neutral. And obviously it's not agreed to by everyone. Perhaps 'Uprising' is the middle of the way, (this is what it is referred to in Chinese and Korean). Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Was on a train recently - when it stopped at Meerut - the announcer stated it was the cradle of "India's First War of Independence". This was in English, followed by Hindi where it was called "Bharat ka Pahela Swantantra Sangram". Can we check on Wikipedia itself what is the most commonly searched term? I have a feeling it indeed is "First War of Independence" or a variant. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't slavery?

Do you mean that this was never called slavery, the British enslaving the people of India? Stars4change (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It was NOT slavery in the traditional sense of the word. There were over 400 princely states which were "free". Also the British Govt. was one of the first European powers to ban slavery - but this did not stop it from promoting indentured labor - result being you see Indians in Sri Lanka, Guyana, Suriname, Fiji etc. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Casualty count

Does anyone have resources to make a casualty count (civilian and military) for both sides? This would be useful information to have in the info box I think. It will help to put into context the extent of the war to readers. Bedbug1122 (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

proposed merge

It has been proposed that the page India's First War of Independence (term) be merged into this page. I'm fairly agnostic on the issue. However, I can provide some background on why the page was set up in the first place. It was in response to some fairly extreme POV editing that resulted in at least one indefinite ban being handed out. The page was created as an attempt to explain the use of the term by Indian politicians and the controversy surrounding the naming of this event in general. Creating the page seemed to go some way towards resolving the contention. The naming topic has been stable for a couple of years now. FWIW, my preference would be to let sleeping dogs lie. Ronnotel (talk) 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Who has made the proposal? I agree - let sleeping dogs lie. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a back door name change to me (its not about merging with the term page but with the "First War of Indian Independence" re-direct page. As such I oppose it (I also agree that we should not kick the poor dog and let it sleep).Slatersteven (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Think enough time has passed on this proposal. I am removing the tag. Feel free to revert if I am jumping the gun. Ronnotel (talk) 16:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
As no one has stuck their head over the parapit and said "hey great idea thats just what we need" I should say yep time to remove it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation 12

states that there is little evidence that political, social and religious concerns were factors in the rebellion however, later in the article it explicitly states these as reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.1.33.2 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

There are sources that say thess were factors, amd otehr that say tehy were not. We have to put both sides of the argument.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Stating the princes

A recent edit added princley states to the rebel side. All appear to be cities or towns not princley states. Some (such as Jhajjar) may be landed gentry, but not independant princes. But inb the case of Jhajjar it was part of Haryana province, and this was naeexed by the company in 1848. As such these were not princley rulers but land owners under Britsh rule.Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


Treaty of Amritsar

It is my understanding that the Treaty was signed in 1846 not 1850. The final payments were made in 1850 as far as I can tell. Can anyone confirm or deny this? Weavehole (talk) 03:16, 27 March 2010 (UTC)weavehole

American English / British English

For as long as this article has been around, it has been written in American English and most editors are used to editing it in that form of grammar. Some new editor has been changing it to British English on a whim. Please discuss it here - personally I don't see a reason to change something no one has complained about. TheBlueKnight (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines state that where an article is on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation the English of that nation should be used. Various examples (Canadian English, U.S. English, British English etc are then given). Where a topic has no such linkage then a consistency throughout rule applies. Since English is one of the two official languages of modern India I would suggest that we go with whichever version (U.S. or British) is commonly used there. Could an Indian editor advise us on this? I have to say that the article presently appears to be in "International English" with few instances of spelling or style bias one way or the other. buistR 19:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
India has no set of rules when it comes to use of American and British English. The print media almost exclusively uses British English while the electronic media frequently uses both and the corporate world almost exclusively uses American English. I say we just let the page stay the way it is. TheBlueKnight (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Lets not also forget that this is also part of British history. As such I would susgest that wiki's, policy would come into play as one of the two participants has an offical form of English, and that is British English.Slatersteven (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No one doubts that it is part of British history and no one is disputing that for an instant. I am merely questioning the need to change it after such a long time especially when most editors have been editing it with American English. Even the spell check of Word, Mozilla and Google Chrome is set to English (U.S.) as default - atleast here in India. For the sake of ease of communication, I request you to stick to the current usage - I don't think it creates a dent in either Indian or British history. Thanks TheBlueKnight (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've never noticed this article being written in American English. I edited it a while back and that was in British English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.54.242 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes with all respect to the editor concerned, I am a little puzzled at the suggestion this article has been repeatedly edited in American English. There are certainly a few instances of "z"s instead of of "s"s and dates where months preceed days but not enough to be noticeable. The subject is an Indian/British historical one and if we were starting afresh then Indian/British written English would seem appropriate - U.S. Wiki-readers would not be comfortable if (say) the American Civil War article was full of Anglicisms. However as things stand I suggest that Indian, British and U.S. editors just go ahead with what seems best to them. It is a balanced, informed and generally well written article Buistr (talk) 22:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC).
I support the use of American English. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The large majority of readers of this article will be either British or Indian, the subject having no material relevance to US history. Both British and Indians speak and read British English, therefore to assist the reader, a task which should always be foremost in the mind of every Wikipedia editor, the spelling used should be British English. This is in accordance with the WP Guideline quoted above. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC))

Better Map Needed

Map: Indian Rebellion of 1857.jpg

re: File:Indian Rebellion of 1857.jpg

While I'm a fan of including these venerable Victorian Era maps in articles, I've only rarely found they are good as a primary map to define the topic. Their value is usually better as an additional reference for those who are very interested in the topic, and as such should be placed later in our coverages; their high inclusion is further diminished as Downloading the main source file is generally the only way one can actually read such... putting the whole process into the realm of "further activities to study this topic".

Hence I conclude this article clearly needs a modern color-coded purpose generated map delineating the regions 'faithful' to the colonial authorities, those regions that rebelled (perhaps with dated annotations). As written, the lead section requires one to have an intimate knowledge of the Indian sub-continents regions and political regions and their history in advance... which puts quite a damper on learning the later from our article. Oopsie! There were a number of Map Makers active on the Commons last fall. I suggest someone maintaining this page collaborate with such a party and generate a useful map ASAP. There is almost certainly an extant SVG 'locator map' blank that shows modern political boundaries that can be quickly adapted given a list of such regions. Color filling stuff is pretty trivial if one has the skills to operate a Map software graphics package, and such will benefit all the wikipedias world wide. Best regards // FrankB 21:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_10&oldid=1136270135"