Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 11

'Indian freedom struggle'
This discussion has been moved to the talk/discuss page of the respective template at Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars Zuggernaut (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Moving
I propose moving all of the discussions re the contentious template to its talk page. Any objections? Rsloch (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As the template is not just about this war but a lot of others that would be best.Slatersteven (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire discussion has been moved to Template_talk:Anglo-Indian_Wars Zuggernaut (talk) 03:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation for large variety of Nomenclature
Few wars or conflicts have such a wide variety of names. There is a reason for this, namely ongoing political sensitivities in certain quarters on both the Indian and British sides. This is an important issue which needs to be understood by a reader to fully understand the Rebellion/Mutiny today, and its legacy. The best place to do that I suggest is right at the start, the introduction to the introduction. Once readers understand from the very start that this is a conflict which still arouses political passions within certain groups on both sides, they will have a better appreciation of the nuances which cannot but help creeping in occasionally to the narrative, whether written by historians of today or of the Victorian era, or indeed manifestations of unconscious bias by Wikipedia editors. I have made an attempt in a new opening sentence to rationalise in a scientific manner the variety of names previously laid out without explanation.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
 * The naming controversy adds nothing to understanding the conflict, but does add something to understanding contemporary attitudes. As such (and rightly) there is a separate article for this subject. By the way many wars have multiple names, we do not go into lengthy explanations as to the differences in leads (nor do we explain why we on wiki use a given name).Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)For example the second world war, or World War II or the Hitler war (UK mainly) or the great patrioitc war (russia), Greater East Asia War (japan). World War I has also been called "The Great War" (a title previously used to refer to the Napoleonic Wars) or sometimes "the war to end all wars" until World War II. The term "First World War and the 14-18 war. And up until WW2 the World War. The Kaiser's War, The War of the Nations, The War in Europe, or The European Warthe War for Justicethe War to Preserve Civilisation. So its not unique, or even unuseral for wars to have different names. The only real differance is that a coulple of the mutines nmes are not contemperaneous with the conflict but represent latter sensibilites.Slatersteven (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. We have agreed that a naming contoversy does exist, that is a step forward. I would argue that here the scale of the controversy is greater than in the other wars you list having more than one title. Is there a good reason why the fact that there is in this case a major controversy  should not be brought to our reader's attention? For example it would benefit the British reader on holiday in Delhi to know not to talk about "The Mutiny" to his Indian hosts, but rather to use the term "Rebellion". In the examples you gave this element of political sensitivity is absent. Few parties would actually be offended if an alternate name were used to that most commonly used in their own nation, for example, a Japanese person would not be offended if a British person in Japan referred to The Greater East Asia War as World War II. If there is a separate article on this subject as you state, perhaps it would be a good idea to add a link to it at the start of the article, where all the various names are currently listed in a bewildering array without explanation? Please could you give me a link to the article you refer to. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
 * Actually there was a controversy recently on wikipdeia about the use of the term Great Patriotic war, and yes there are still occasional controversies over (for example) japans naming of various incidents related to WW2. By the way it is mentioned in the article [] just not in the lead (which is supposed to be about the salient points of the conflict, not modern controversies, which in this case are the events of 1857), by the way there is also a brief one line mention of current attitudes that see the mutiny as a war of independence. As to the article about the name India's First War of Independence (term), which is linked to at the very start of this article.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I like the section on Nomenclature you referred me to, it is useful. Would you have any objection to making a specific reference to it in the opening sentence such as "For a discussion on the wide variety of Nomenclature, see section below Nomenclature", placed immediately after the list of alternative names? This will allow the reader who is unsurprisingly confused at this early juncture to resolve his queries in a logical sequence. The opening sentence and its large array of names clearly needs clarification, but it could be argued that a first breaching of the topic on page 32 out of 33 is a bit late. The fact that the relevant information is indeed there somewhere is fine, but like all information it needs to be presented in a timely manner to be of maximum use and relevance. I would also like to see the names in the first sentence listed in an order dictated by reference to some stated rationale. I have no problem at all with the title of the article as it is, to make that clear, it is a good compromise between all the options. But I would like to see the alternative names listed in order of frequency of use, with the most commonly used ones listed first. That would be a logical rationale of sorts, better ones may exist. The current order of listing inexplicably shows the name least frequently used internationally, and that most subject to controversy, placed first, i.e.  "India's First War of Independence". I suspect that "Indian Mutiny" is a name more frequently used than the latter, yet "Indian Mutiny" is listed in position 3 of alternative names, rather than at position 1. We are agreed that naming is important and controversial, so would you object to adopting the rationale of listing order I have suggested? If not could you suggest an alternative rationale more acceptable to you? (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC))


 * I can't think of an example on wikipedia where we do this when there is a naming controversy. Nor do I bleive it is important to understanding the events of the war (indea it could be argues that it would be a distraction drawing attnetion early on to something that had no impact on the evetns themsleves), its a side line to that issue. As to ordering, the reason that 'India's first war' is first was a compromise, and not an unaceptabel one.It is after all the main bone of contention. There be a justification to some line of text saying that " the war has mazny names the result of the conflicts continuing importance to india's natioal sence of identiy', perhpas.Slatersteven (talk) 19:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you have made an excellent suggestion which I would be very happy with. I simply want the reader to be alerted to the issue at the very start. I take it therefore that you would be happy if I add immediately after the list of alternative names the following sentence: "The War has many names which are the result of the Conflict's continuing importance to India's National Sense of Identity." Thinking about it, that's an extremely important statement, well put. I'm glad we have reached a consensus on this issue. I have many more points to make though, but shall deal with each one separately in due course. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC))
 * To be honest, the addition seems clunky and out of place to me. The war has many names, that much is already quite clear. Ascribing this variety in names to "the Conflict's continuing importance to India's National Sense of Identity" seems both simplistic as well as OR to me. OR because we would need to see a reliable source that not only makes that attribution but also supports the view that historians generally believe it to be root cause of the many titles. Simplistic, because many of the names are historical and have little to do with India's national sense of identity. I don't see how this adds value to the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"The many names are the result of the conflict's continuing importance to India's national sense of identity" - This sounds patronizing. As an Indian, there is no doubt in my mind about the name of the event. Perhaps "the many names are the result of the conflict's continuing importance to Britain national sense of colonial identity" would be a better intro. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the sentence, pending discussion, since there doesn't seem to be consensus for it. (WP:BRD). --RegentsPark (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. So anyone have any other suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 19:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The wide varieties oof names refelcts the evolving and changing views of the conflict.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Template
I created a template recently called Template:Anglo-Indian Wars (later renamed to Template:Indian freedom struggle) to link the various events and movements leading to the Indian independence. Specifically I linked various wars such as the First Anglo-Maratha War, Second Anglo-Maratha War, Third Anglo-Maratha War, First Anglo-Sikh War, Second Anglo-Sikh War, Indian independence movement, Indian rebellion of 1857, the four Anglo-Mysore Wars, etc. The template is a mere chronological linkage of events/movements with similar objectives. It looks like:

Zamandari system, etc.
"The land was reorganized under the comparatively harsh Zamindari system to facilitate the collection of taxes." The Zamandari system was in fact traditional, created by the Moguls and simply kept on by the British, indeed the "Zamandari" Wiki link immediately confirms this, thus contradicting the statement that it was a British innovation, within its own supporting link!!!

"The economic policies of the East India Company were also resented by the Indians" - this makes it sound as if there was one general point of view in India amongst Indians - there wasn't. If there had been it is doubtful that the British would have held on. Many important local powers in India remained neutral in the conflict, others backed the British. The Sikhs for example were a major help to the British, and played a major role in retaking Delhi. It was definately one point of view at the time, and probably a correct point of view at that time, but to claim that all Indians were generally of that opinion is a massive over simplification and smacks of Indian nationalism. There were many Indians at the time that praised British rule for its internal order, which was a marked contrast to the anarchy and civil war of the first half of the 18th century. Also, Hindus had generally been excluded from the ruling classes by the Moguls. Under the British, in many areas, local Hindu rule had been re-instated where Muslim administrators had once held sway over less than happy Hindus; again, this was not always unpopular. Unfortunately many Indian (nationalist) revisionist historians like to portray a historical united Indian front against imperialism, but the reality was far more complicated. Indeed, so few British troops could never have withstood any united and passionate Indian concensus of opinion.

"It began as a mutiny of native soldiers (sepoys) employed by the British East India Company's army, perceived aainst race based injustices and inequities," sorry this isn't written in proper English, even if "perceived aainst" was turned into "against perceived", it still creates a strong POV - was it "race based" - ?? A big opening claim has to be supported by big sources, but even English was too much of a challenge for the writer, let alone historical verification.

Unfortunately all British Raj related articles in Wikipedia seem to get set upon by Indian nationalists, who make sweeping claims about the "criminal" "racist" British and the valiant Indian fight against imperialism. Well, considering the British soldier was outnumbered in India by about 1 soldier to 2000 Indians - it speaks for itself, the British usually had to tread very carefully in their administration and rely on not insubstantial local support to get things done. But of course, many indians prefer a less complicated jingoistic black/white version of their past, because its easier to live with - unfortunately this Bollywood JAI HIND version of history regularly invades Wikepedia, for example, the Politically Correct revisionist names for articles always win against the names that were used perfectly well for 150-350 years, the "Indian Army" of the Raj period becomes "British Indian Army" - a title by which it was never known, the English names Calcutta, Madras and Bombay have been changed to their Indian equivalents, regardless of the fact Wiki is in English (so is Vienna "Wein" in Wiki? Is Moscow "Moskova"? of course not, but when it comes to India everybody goes all PC and caves in) and of course now we have "Indian Rebellion of 1857" - because "mutiny" implies that the combat was mainly with the former British units (which it was), and "rebellion" implies a general uprising of the masses - which it wasn't; but of course Indian nationalists want us to believe it was, so the name gets changed, and anybody who says its wrong can't see the emperor's new clothes. What is a real laugh, is the sham debate before any name change, when it's a foregone conclusion that the old established name is going to get thrown out. It's like some kind of Soviet show trial.

It's all a bit of joke really, or should I say that my observations are "perceived aainst" injustices.

TB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.62.165 (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not a Soapbox. TheBlueKnight (talk) 21:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1857 Martyrs and Rebellions of Meerut
I have not addedd gujjar stuff particularly. But you are not aware with the history. The first revolution was started from Meerut. And major caste was Gurjar who revolted with other villagers of saharanpur, Muzzafarnagar, Bulandshahr and Meerut. The Gurjar caste was in majority and had three kingdoms namely, Parikshitgarh, Landhora and Dadri. For your kind information all are entered in Government ghazeteirs and british imperial ghazzete. These all stuff are the part of this topic. Without the discussion of Meerut, Gurjar, Muslim Rajputs who fought against the British Army (included Gurkha regiment and Jat regiment), the 1857 Fight for freedom cant be completed.

Kotwal Dhan singh gurjar was first person who lead the revolution in Meerut. The government of india confirmed it from the collectorates and ghazette. The statue is installed in Meerut.

Mr. Knight Please dont delete it as all information with references which i entered in genuine and from recognized sources. Dont talk it as Gujjar stuff. You are trying to revert the truth of history which is hide by persons like you.

Regards (Gurjeshwar (talk) 12:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC))

The Role of Gurjars People and soldiers in 1857 Revolt
The Role of Gurjars People and soldiers in 1857 Revolt This is the small description which i added on that page, because without that inclusion the real fact can not be come to this world. The indian government and British gazzete tell this story. The revolt which started at Meerut fueled by the Gurjars villagers and policeman. Still Meerut is a majority city of Gurjars. And this is impossible to anyone to revolt without the help of local peoples. Gurjars of Bijnor were fighting under the leadership of Gurjar leaders Kadam Singh and Dulal Singh. In the whole revolt Gurjars were fighting along with the Muslims. Gurjars in Mathura and Agra region also fought against the British and gave them a horrible period. That is why when the revolt ended, the properties of the Gurjars were impounded. Gurjars in Ludhiyana, Firozpur, Gujaranwala, Sialkot, Gujarat, Jalandhar district, Kangada revolt against the British and tried to end the British rule but when the revolt failed, the properties were impounded by the British. Hundreds of villages in district Bulandshahar were ruined by the Britishers but Gujjars fought with full strength. Not only had the Britishers declared Gujjars as criminal tribe by defining Criminal Tribes Act. However, in the freedom struggle of India, Gujjars were working as the main leaders of the Non Cooperation Movement of Mahatma Gandhi in the country. History states that there were freedom fighters in each and every single Gujjar village of the country.

So this should be included in this article. Without Gurjars/Gujjars The revolt cant be planned and implemented. Regards (Gurjeshwar (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC))


 * This information might well be included, but not by giving potentially undue weight to any one community's participation, or using POV phrasing, and it should be in the correct point in the narrative. Finally, it should be written in reasonably coherent English. HLGallon (talk) 04:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have been searching for any references to Dhan Singh Gurjar and his leadership role in the initial outbreak at Meerut of the Great Indian Rebellion. None of the recently published histories of the Rebellion mention him but Doctor Surendra Nath Sen's authoritative post-Independence work "1857", published by the Ministry of Information of the Indian Government, does record (page 62) that the officiating Kotwal in charge of the Meerut city police Dhanna Singh was a Gurjar. Dr Sen states that "At this crisis he had no control over them and their passion for plunder got the better of their good sense. The unsuspecting wayfarers were ruthlessly robbed and murdered and Indian citizens suffered at their hands equally with the Europeans". There is no reference to Dhan Singh Gurjar playing any role in the Rebellion.
 * Dr Sen's account may very well have been overtaken by more recent research but if the Wikipedia article is to be rewritten some authoritative sources should be cited.Buistr (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC))


 * I would be dubious about adding the idea of listing 'ethnic participants' to the narative. We would have to list eaqch and every group that took part in the mutiny. If tehy contribution was (as seems to being claimed) greater then most we need RS claiming that.Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The work cited by Gurjeshwar, "The Royal Gurjars", is divided into three parts; Parts 1 and 2 are written in good English, if a little heavy on detail, and meaningful in many cases only to someone with very good knowledge of the geography and languages of India. Part 3, which deals with "The contribution of Gurjars to Integrated India" descends after its introduction and some accounts of mediaeval battles into an ungrammatical and badly-spelled diatribe. (Gurjeshwar's contributions are direct copy-and-pastes from it.) Its own sources are largely oral tradition, given a very heavy editorial slant. I would be extremely careful about accepting the absolute reliability of any of the third part of this book. HLGallon (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, To confirm that piece of information included in the article about Gurars of Sikandrabad and Dadri, visit this.Thank youMkrestin (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Without seeing the whole text we cannot judge context. Is he saying it or repeating what someone else says.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)I can't cross check the book for a while, but my guess is that this is an inaccurate reading of the role of Gujjars. I believe that their role was non-partisan in looting and plundering. While the exact sentence may be in the book, I suspect that we are not accurately representing the writers views. It would be helpful if someone could get hold of a copy of the book and read it. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Its rather pricey, I shall see if my libuary either has or can get a copy. I would ask that if the source has not been read then its admited too now.Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in my library. I'll try to swing by sometime soon and take a look. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(od) Well, this is actually quite interesting. The exact quote about the plundering and looting is in the context of Gujar villagers taking advantage of the chaos following the mutiny to plunder at will (so it is incorrect to say that those actions were directed at the foreign rulers). However, Stokes goes on to make a fairly good case that the vast majority of Gujars in Meerut, Bulandshahr, Bijnor and in the Meerut-Delhi corridor were taking action against the British government. I'm rewriting the section a bit based on this book.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * rewritten. I removed the Umrao Singh sentence (see my edit summary) and the plundering and looting quote (see above comment). Also, do we really need that imperial gazetter extract? The section is on initial stages and the sentence appears out of place. I'll leave that open.--RegentsPark (talk) 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok good, Does stokes talk about Umrao singh of dadri?It is said that when British government regained hold, they destroyed many Gurjar villages and land of Gurjars were given to people who helped Briish government.If stokes narrated this, you can add it.Thank you Mkrestin (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No. The only Umrao Singh mentioned is of Roorkee. Stokes does talk about the destruction of Gurjar villages. In his telling, after the sepoys mutinied and headed for Delhi, there was chaos in the area around Meerut. The Gurjars took over the space between Meerut and Delhi, which is one reason why the EIC army was unable to follow the mutineers. I'll try to get to this again next week. --RegentsPark (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Modern Gurjar writers understandably resent their forefathers being labelled as lawless bandits and it is quite possible that the Gurjars of 1857 played a more prominent part in the Rebellion than they have been given credit for. However was it necessary to delete the section sourced from William Dalrymple's "The Last Mughal" recording that, in the general chaos of the time, they attacked non-Gurjar Indian civilians in the Delhi hinterland, as well as envoys of Bahadur Shah? Dalrymple is a modern historian who has researched Indian sources to produce a balanced account of the uprising, notably including detailed coverage of the atrocities which followed the capture of Delhi by the British and their allies. He is unlikely to have invented widespread outrages by some Gurjars against Indian civilians as well as British refugees. Another recently published (2007) work "The Great Uprising in India 1857-58" by Rosie Llewellyn-Jones is critical of Eric Stokes, concluding that "it is hard to see the Gurjars and their companions as freedom fighters" (pages 19-20). So were they heroic leaders of the Rising or tribal opportunists who by "robbing anyone who attempted to move along the roads in and out of the capital, kept (Mughal Delhi) in a far more effective state of blockade than anything achieved by the British" (Dalrymple page 261)? I would suggest that the Wikipedia article simply note that the question is a disputed one and cite current and reputable sources for both sides of the argument. Buistr (talk) 07:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Seems only NPOV.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me. I removed the Dalrymple statement because it doesn't fit with the narrative. If you rewrite the narrative the way you're (Buistr) are suggesting, then it would fit. Thanks for the additional research. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy
The Sepoy mutiny, was as much about sepoys as Bombay Duck, is a bird or Jellyfish a fish. Sepoy historically and contemporary is a rank in the British and Indian Army, it means an infantry private. With sepoy all over the place, what does this article suggest? So I have replaced inaccurate word with native soldier. Of course usage like Sepoy rebellion/mutiny and historical usage of the term or usage in book titles etc. is maintained. Mangal Pandey was hanged on 8 April, 1857, his Jamadar or lieutenant too was hanged on 22 April. So ab initio this mutiny was not about infantry privates. Does this article with sepoy all over the place mean to convey that the Havildars, Jamadars or Subedars or the Sowars and others in the cavalry, and then the golandaz and others in the artillery and their superiors just looked and cheered as the sepoys or the infantry privates fought? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should not perpetuate ignorance.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A sepoy from Persian سپاهی Sipâhi meaning "soldier") was formerly the designation given to an Indian soldier in the service of a European power. All Native solders were Sepoys, and some were also provates (akso called Sepoys.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! You mean privates. See the article that the sepoy link points to. Sepoy is/was a private, the others were havaldar, jamadar, subedar and god-knows-what-dar. The cavalry private was called sowar. The artillery fellow was called golandaz. Ignorance ain't bliss.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In modern use the word Sepoy means private. At the time of the Mutiny (the Sepoy mutiny it was called that may be a clue for you) it was a word used as a geneal term for a native units (sepoy regiments) [][]. It seems clear that they were referd to as Sepoy regiments and it was referd to as the Sepoy mutiny.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What did the Naiks, and the Lascars and the Golandazs and the Sowars do, did they not join the party, or they waited outside the gate?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why not susgeast what text needs changing and we can discuse it. You would also have top demonstrate (as I have done with its use to describe units rather then a rank,m mincluding cavalry []) that the word Sepoy does not apply to units but is only a word used to describe a rank.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Linking in the other sepoy discussion.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If the word did indeed refer at the time specifically to a soldier in the rank of private in an infantry unit, then Yogesh Khandke would be justified in objecting. However, most sources conclude that it was then the generic term in Hindi and Urdu for "soldier". (Rank designations have little to do with it. Just about every retired Field Marshal, from whatever service: British, Indian, American, Soviet Union, etc. will describe themselves as being a "soldier".) If I were to describe actions of any troops not specifically or individually noted, then they would be "soldiers", regardless of whether some of them wore stripes or pips, and whether any in the lowest rank would be noted on their paybooks as "private", "trooper", "signalman" or whatever. That said, by all means use the term "Native Soldier" if you wish, but the term is no more or less meaningful than "sepoy". Please avoid WP:SOAP. HLGallon (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * A postscript to my last; when questioning whether the term "sepoy" should embrace senior ranks and military trades, it should be borne in mind that in the regular infantry and cavalry units of the Bengal Army, all promotions went strictly by seniority. There was no separate "officer" class, nor were young soldiers identified as having leadership potential and trained to assume responsibility as NCOs or officers. Both Indian and British personnel attained high rank by enlisting earlier and living longer than their contemporaries. By the time Indian soldiers reached the rank of subadar-major or its equivalent, they were often broken in health and "old women" in habit, concerned mainly with their pensions. (This applied as much to British as to Indian officers.) Unless they had seen action in the Anglo-Sikh Wars, the only training they would have received would have been stultifying garrison duties. This meant that the traditional respect of junior soldiers for senior ranks would have been eroded, and also that senior ranks would have shared the ordinary soldiers' concerns over the erosion of mainstream Indian society and encroachments on their terms of service. Hence, "sepoy" can not only be used as a generic term for "native soldier", but also embraces a common outlook on service and society. This was not the case in many "irregular" units, raised on the "risaidar" system, whereby local chiefs would enlist men wealthy enough to own arms and possibly their own horses, and lead them personally. There were fewer British officers in such units and "risaidars" would command respect through personality or position in the community. Though there were exceptions, most such irregular units did not join the rebellion.HLGallon (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (1)Slatersteven will you please translate what you have written into English. (2)HLGAllon, hold your wikifire. My question is was it just sepoys or other ranks? If it was other ranks too, why sneer at the guys and call them all sepoys? Isn't native troops or native soldiers a clear, unambiguous, accurate, English word. (3)Sepoy historically and contemporarily refers to an infantry rank the equivalent of private. (4)The modern generic Hindi word for soldier is Jawan, though I am not sure it is used for officers. (5)The continued use of sepoy in this article could remind one of another similar term coolie, which was used for Asian people/Indian people regardless of their professions or socio-economic standing. (6)I am sorry, I disagree, that native soldier is no more or no less meaningful than sepoy, for the reasons given in (1) to (5) above. (7)We could atleast discuss, why sepoy an ambiguous inaccurate term, which by your own admission is Hindi/Urdu, cannot be replaced by a pair of excellent English words native soldier, or native troops whichever suits you most. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sepoy is not a derogatory term. The term 'Sepoy' is used in connection with the events of 1857-58 by Indian as well as non-Indian historians (please see the discussion I have linked above for some references). It would be helpful if you could provide some references for your assertions above. (Note: this reference indicates that sepoy was used interchangeably with Indian soldiers, not just privates but all ranks.)--RegentsPark (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Repost, Then why not suggest what text needs changing and we can discuses it. You would also have to demonstrate (as I have done with its use to describe units rather then a rank including cavalry []) that the word Sepoy does not apply to units but is only a word used to describe a rank.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Counter questions to questions are not helpful, my question is why use an ambiguous non-English term instead of an exact English one? My objection to the use of the term stems from the popular colonial appelation for the events Sepoy mutiny, the predominance of this term, puts weight behind that view, and the article departs from the policy of wp:NPOV, what this article forgets, is that they were former employees of the British, even in the general sense of the term, as they rallied under Bahadur Shah and in his name, so to continue to use the term Sepoy is anachronistic two times over, less than 90 years hence, some Indian soldiers (POWs) deserted the British Army and joined the Germans, Italians, and formed the Azad Hind Fouz, are they called sepoys?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no questions in my post (here). Perhaps you are confusing a request for sources with questions. I'm asking you to provide a reference that supports your assertion that the term 'sepoy' is derogatory in the same way as the term 'coolie'. However, your second point is reasonable (more reasonable than talking loosely about ducks and fish). For example, I note that the first para under 'causes' ends with The domination of higher castes in the Bengal Army has been blamed in part for the Sepoy mutiny of 1857, which inadvertently seems to state that the rebellion was a sepoy mutiny. I think a careful reading of the article and judicious rephrasing is in order. I also agree that 100 uses of the term sepoy may be excessive in the article. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are putting words in my mouth. I did not use the word derogatory even once, so where is the need for providing references for that. Sepoy, coolie are two common terms for Indians; soldiers, expatriate workers, used in the 19th century by colonialists and the like. If you wish I can provide a reference for that. Another point is that Sepoy rebellion is a misnomer like Bombay Duck or Jellyfish or the like, ignorant (the term) to put it neutrally.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It might be a misnomer to you, but the term 'sepoy' and the fact that the rebellion started as a mutiny of sepoys, it is well accepted by historians. There are hundreds of references in the article from Indian as well as non-Indian historians asserting to that. The thing to remember is that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and reflects accepted scholarship as the reference point for writing articles. Personal distastes or ideas are not a substitute for that. Regards. You associated coolie, a word generally accepted as derogatory, with sepoy. If you say that your juxtaposition of the words was free association without an attempt to attach a derogatory label to sepoy, I'll take your word for it. --RegentsPark (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Since you are asking me my motive, or what I intended, by the juxtaposition, I will do so, I do not have a source to back my statement. The two words are examples of carelessness regarding terminology related to the natives of colonies. A lack of interest in being correct, another word that comes to mind is Red Indian, take a brush, and paint them with one colour. Every one is a sepoy, a coolie, a Red Indian a term used for hundreds of culturally unique pepoles. Why should a 21st century encyclopaedia, whose middle name is freedom, use imperial terminology? . Please answer the question if you can, or trash it as rhetoric. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But sepoy is the correct term and is used consistently by historians of all stripes. And, as an encyclopedia, we should be using terms that are accepted by historians. Sepoy describes the mutineers more accurately than any other term so that's what we should use. Like I said above, I think it worth scanning the article to make sure it is not over used - I agree with you that the article should not give the impression that the rebellion was a mere mutiny of sepoys - but to get rid of it, or to underuse it, is not what an encyclopedia should do. (And let's not worry about motives, I haven't questioned your motives and have no intention of doing so.) --RegentsPark (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why replace one word with two? Moreover native solders could also apply just as well to troops not in the employ of the company that joined the rebellion (such as the Gwalior contingent). It is a far more confusing term as it applies to more then one faction.Slatersteven (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Valid question, how do you differentiate the various belligerents, I guess a disclaimer about sepoy, that the term is used without prejudice, regarding the description of the events of 1857 and is used not in the sense of infantry private, but in the sense of former employees of the EIC, could be added as a note. I will make one but hard of time at the moment. Also as RP said, too many sepoys spoil the article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure that reducing its use makes that much differance, and may need a lot of work to re-word sentances to avoid any potential confusion I poitn aout above. But feel feel to give an example of a sentance you feel can be re-worded. As to a dis-claimer, where would youput it?Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, sepoys were fighting on both sides of the conflicts, so the context would be enough to clear any confusion if the word native soldiers were used, answering your question, the disclaimer could be an inline note. like this (1)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

A few comments
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is Tatya Tope's name under the Sepoy flag?
 * 2) Why is Nanasaheb's name not amongst the belligerents?
 * 3) Would Gavrilo Princip, be considered a leader or commander? Why is Mangal Pandey considered one? Pandey shot only a lowly British EIC officer, and not a heir to the British throne, the WWI article does not cite Princip as one of the commanders etc, why is Pandey's name there?
 * Removed EIC flag from TT. Nanasaheb is there (under Bahadur Shah Zafar) but without a flagicon (do you know a suitable one?). Removed Pandey per your comment. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The saffron flag would work fine for Nanasaheb. The Jari patka. Nana is there as a commander, not a belligerent, why?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Better? Thanks for catching that. Considering the extent and duration of Nana Sahib's battle with the British, leaving him out is wrong. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Points raised in 1 2 3 above taken care of.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The all-India nature of the uprising and Victoria's proclamation
The above are not represented in the article. Kindly discuss and comment so that the necessary changes can be incorporated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Though the main battles were fought north of the Narmada, the events of 1857 had an all India nature, for example Nana Shankar Sheth, a Mumbai business magnet, one of the two directors of the GIP Railway was accused of giving assistance. Two were hanged in Mumbai at Azad Maidan for their troubles by Elphistone, there took place hundreds of such incidents of varying magnitudes, these should find atleast a mention.
 * 2) Please read Victoria's proclamation, results of the events of 1857 were
 * 3) The Queen declared freedom to practice religion and no coerced proselytising, the British won't mess with the religious practices and customs of Indians
 * 4) The British understood that the Kings of India though vassals, were key allies of the British, and from that point onwards, there were no annexation, the British respected the soverignity (however limited) of the rulers, and did not violate it.
 * The article does mention that there were small incidents all over India. But it would not be useful to list every incident where a couple of blokes caused trouble or were hanged. If you want try and create sub articles on each region and list all mutiny related incidents. Also the results section of the info box would be far too large if we include these two statements. It’s also not entirely true, the British still removed rulers they did not like, they just did not annex territory just installed more compliant rulers. Its true they agreed to no more interference in native religious practices, but I am not sure it’s really that much of a result. Can you explain why we need these? Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OneI would suggest you check the Wikipedia page Mutiny; it lists about a score of mutinies. each mutiny is about the magnitude of the "couple of blokes type" that you term above, such incidents occured all over the Indian sub-continent, they were battles that were a part of the war. Important events which need to be recorded by a mention, if not detailed description in the main article, you are right about the part that they can have their own sub-pages. TwoYou are right, the British did change rulers for many reasons, though compliance was never an issue, the issues were administrative. Can you bring one example of some one who was removed for political reason? There were about 532 such large and small kingdoms, allies of the British, it must have been an administrative nightmare, to have these enclaves in the middle of British territory, but the British did not touch one, against the will of the ruler, even though some of them were really tiny, the point is that the end of the hostilities related to the events of 1857, though the British and their Indian allies prevailed, it taught a hard lesson to the British, about the importance of their Indian allies the 500 odd kings, and hence forth they ruled by respecting the status quo post 1857. This article does not inform so and it should. ThreeI don't understand your inclusion in infobox comment.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Reply to your question "Why we need these?" I am quoting a commentrator on the events, which sums my views on the subjectIn the triumphal British writings on the rebellion and its suppression, the heroes and villains are depicted from the point of view of the victors, and the same perception is reflected in the pictorial representation of what happened. Is there any way we can reverse the gaze? What was the Indian perception of what happened in 1857?

Many sketches and paintings of 1857 from British hands were reproduced by the British printing press in journals and albums and these have been preserved with care in museums and archives, including those Indian taxpayers paid for. While there is a multitude of such pictures, there is none by Indians of those times, none identified as authentically contemporary. The Indian voice of those times can be heard only in the surviving texts of proclamations and letters and orders and the like, as well as rare first person narratives in the form of memoirs and depositions at trials of the rebels. That alone can help us overcome the silence of the defeated.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See the source linked It sums the results of 1857, (1)No annexation of territory (2)No meddling in customs/religous practices/tradition.(3)Protection to feudals. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First, Second or Third?
If this is called the First War of Independence, when was the second? The template box did not help as it led me round the houses, up to the Indian Independence Movement. If this is called the first then there should be clearer clarification of when the second was, shouldn't it?

The term was first used by Veer Savarkar, perhaps in anticipation of another armedpopular uprising against the British. It never came as the British were thrown out of India by a variety of factors including WW-2, popularity of INA, Indian freedom struggle of the Congress and the Bombay Naval Mutiny - so the need for a Second did not arise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueKnight (talk • contribs) 20:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The naming of the article
Hello

I recently came across this article. I object to the naming of the article. It is very obvious that the "Revolt of 1857" and "Sepoy Mutiny" or "Rebellion blah blah" are names given by the British imperialists who wished to reduce the significance of this great war.

It is akin to calling the American War of Independence as the "American Rebellion".

Kindly change it to the "First war of Independence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.160.145 (talk) 17:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kindly read all the discussions we have had on the name of this conflict.

Rsloch (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please see First War of Indian Independence (term). It was developed in response to much of this discussion. Ronnotel (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad to see some old regulars back!  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Revolt Section
The Revolt section, and its subs, seems to be a real mess with things out of order. Before I reorder it all does anyone object? Rsloch (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

beef/pork tallow for greasing
if anyone feels like firming up the information, amitabha mukerjee excerpts kaye and malleson to the effect of showing that beef greased cartridges were indeed issued:

Clearly, the answer to the q. of whether the cartridges used beef or pork tallow, is a resounding yes. A related question is whether the native troops had been issued such bullets. On the answer is a more qualified yes. During an early test, several native groups had actually been issued beef- greased cartridges, first during a test in 1853, when they kept it in their pouch along with other belongings, and second, from late 1856, during the training of of several hundred native soldiers at Meerut, Ambala and other rifle training centers.

Such soldiers who were trained, at least in Meerut, were issued what the authorities believed to be "mutton fat" cartridges. However, the order that these should be made of mutton was not issued until January 1857 and may have taken longer to implement. At the time of the training, there is no evidence that mutton fat was being procured for manufacturing cartridges; The only tallow that had been indented earlier is beef fat. Also see: http://www.cse.iitk.ac.in/users/amit/books/palmer-1966-mutiny-outbreak-at.html

cheers 98.149.143.251 (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

other regions
Hey Wikiguys,

I think that the sentence "Other regions of Company controlled India—Bengal province, the Bombay Presidency, and the Madras Presidency—remained largely calm." doesn't fit exactly, because Sepoys of the Bengal Presidency Army began the rebellion. They just didn't turn against Calcutta and kept around Delhi.

Greetings!
 * I think that the sentence as it stands is meant to make the point that only the Bengal Army revolted (and that associated civilian risings across Bengal followed). Each of the three Presidencies had its own separate army and for a variety of reasons those of Bombay and Madras remained mainly unaffected (although portions of two Bombay regiments did mutiny and were disbanded).Buistr (talk) 01:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is what it says, they were largley calm.Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In 1857, the Bengal Presidency included the North-Western Provinces and Oudh, where much of the action took place, and Bengal Province, which was largely quiet. (See File:IGI1908India1857b.jpg).  The sentence says that not much happened in Bengal province, or in the other presidencies, Madras and Bombay.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if those beef or mutton greased cartridges were issued in other Presidencies as well. May be they weren't issued in those Presidencies & hence they remained calm & quite. Religions & religious dos & don'ts have been driving forces in India.Tushar Doshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC).

Start with a definition
There isn't really an introduction on this page. It should begin with a broad description / definition of the concept in its entirety, not launch straight into the individual events. MijinLaw (talk) 10:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mewan by definition, this is not a word its a historical event.Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Terms can be defined. The heading of an encyclopedia entry is a term. It's almost there: dates, participants and stuff are mentioned, but it's mixed in with details of the early events of the conflict. That shouldn't be there in the first couple of lines. e.g. if you read the entry for World War I, it doesn't mention Franz Ferdinand in the first few sentences, it tells you in broad terms what the war was, and what the result of it was. MijinLaw (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, So you want only the material relating to the nature of the war and its results. I see no problom with that.Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reaction in Britain
Much of the 'Reaction in Britain' is from V. Sundaram's article British Colonial Prejudiced Press Coverage of the First War of Indian Independence which can be found here. Thus I have removed it. Rsloch (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Straits Times, 23 August 1857
Can we have a page number for this source.Slatersteven (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * One is not usually used in academic texts on the subject (eg Kaul, Reporting the Raj,or Potter SJ, Newspapers and Empire). If you want to check the reference the Times is available on the Singapore National Library website Rsloch (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

why do not consider rao tularam, rewari's contribution in 1857 revolt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.82.86.37 (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Beato's Secundra photo
My apologies if this has been covered before - there are a lot of archived pages and no search function. Should we not be making it more clear that this image is generally considered to be a staged photograph and that the bones etc were not in fact present in such great numbers? The image description at Commons does explain that there is a difference of opinion regarding its veracity but, tbh, a quick GBooks search appears to show that the weight is very much on the "staged" side of things. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most photographs of that time were in some form staged, and as I understand it Beato was restaging what had been there beforehand. The article has lots of pictures so if this is an issue the photo can easily be removed. Rsloch (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

== File:This sketch of Lucknow's Alam Bagh was made by Lt CH Mecham on 25 December 1857 while fierce fighting raged on. In a note at the bottom of the sketch, the artist wishes "my future readers many happy returns of this festive season"..jpg Nominated for Deletion ==

1857 REVOLT
britiish east india company — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.113.87 (talk) 10:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

1857 revolts
Search to Liabrary TKMM COLLEGE NANGIARKULANGARA!

By

JUSTIN(2010) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.68.113.87 (talk) 10:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not exchange
Why they don't Let the Muslim use the cow fat and the Hindist the pig fat?Just exchange? Britain had been in India for quite a long time, they should know their custom. Can anyone tell me why? suppose 1: someone incited a revolution against Britain 2: Britain want to take over it from EIC 3: Britain want to suppress the potencial enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laoshuxsm (talk • contribs) 02:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the articel.Slatersteven (talk) 10:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aftermath section
This section contains a characteristic excerpt from a letter written by Edward Vibart (then 19 years old) to his uncle. The original text was taken from the introduction to William Dalrymple's book, The Last Moghul. Later on in the text he gives a fuller version of the letter, commenting that it "oscillated between bloody bravado and flashes of awareness at the horrors he was committing." I have two concerns:
 * The letter was written while fighting was still in progress in Delhi - possibly it does not belong in the Aftermath Section, and
 * The fuller text makes it clear that Vibart's orders were limited to a particular area (between the Delhi Gate and the Turkman Gate), but it's quite clear from Dalrymple's book that a massacre of the (male) civilian population of Delhi was indeed official army policy. It is thus misleading as to the content of the specific source (Vibart), but nevertheless fully representative of the attitudes of the times (in the absence of a brief and to the point statement from another reliable source).

Here's the fuller text:


 * ‘I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately, but such a one as I witnessed yesterday please God I pray I never see again. The regiment was ordered to clear the houses between the Delhi and Turkman Gates, which are the two gates that we have to hold, and the orders were to shoot every soul. I think I must have seen about 30 or 40 defenceless people shot down before me. It was literally murder and I was perfectly horrified. The women were all spared, but their screams, on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most terrible.
 * The town as you may imagine presents an awful spectacle now … heaps of dead bodies scattered throughout the place and every house broken into and sacked – but it is the [ordinary] townspeople who are now falling victims to our infuriated soldiery.
 * You can easily fancy with what feelings I visited all my old haunts yesterday, I went to all the old remembered places, and almost [succeeded in] imagining that nothing had taken place; but on looking around, the delusion was soon expelled for the marks of cannon and musketry were to be seen on all sides, telling but too well the mortal conflict that had been raging here not long before. A little further on you would come across a heap of dead bodies in the last stage of putrefaction, or some old woman in a state of starvation, and you could not help wondering how you could ever delight in bloodshed and war. And a few yards further on still some [of our] drunken soldiers would reel past, exciting your pity not unmixed with disgust. Wherever you go, you see some unfortunate man or other being dragged out of his hiding place, and barbarously put to death.
 * Heaven knows I feel no pity – but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes – hard must be that man’s heart I think who can look on with indifference. And yet it must be so for these black wretches shall atone with their blood for our murdered countrymen – my own father and mother – sister and brother all cry aloud for vengeance, and their son will avenge them. Yes! He shall be seen in the fight, and shall never shrink [from bloodshed,] for God have given him both strength and courage.

Compare this with the abbreviated version previously used:


 * The orders went out to shoot every soul.... It was literally murder... I have seen many bloody and awful sights lately but such a one as I witnessed yesterday I pray I never see again. The women were all spared but their screams on seeing their husbands and sons butchered, were most painful... Heaven knows I feel no pity, but when some old grey bearded man is brought and shot before your very eyes, hard must be that man's heart I think who can look on with indifference...

I was left with the feeling after reading Dalrymple's excellent book that much of the present article could do with revision - he manages what looks to me in 2013 like a good neutral point of view - but I don't think Dalrymple would appreciate his book being mined quite so extensively. Thomas Peardew (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If we can avoid long quotes all the better, but if you believe one has been reproduced in such a way as to give an inaccurate impression of the whole feel free in changing it.
 * It is also dangerous to rewrite a whole article based on one book, more so if like Dalrymple's it has an openly stated agenda. Rsloch (talk) 12:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses
Do we have any facts on the total number of casualties and losses for all sides? We could then put it in a box at the top of the page like they do with the articles on other wars.--Lord Don-Jam (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had the same question, and it has appeared a few times in the Archives. I am, however, too new to this page to begin addressing it directly myself. Here's a Guardian piece that suggests a consensus, "Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals..." in light of much higher figures proposed. Here's a paper arguing "we will never have a precise figure for the British civilian dead." Here's a book summary calling the number of British casualties, in comparison to wars both contemporary (Crimea, US Civil War) and future (World Wars of the 20th century) "surprisingly small, small enough for the dead to be listed almost individually in contemporary reports." It appears that page 572 of Raj : the making and unmaking of British India by Lawrence James goes into the subject and maybe someone has access to that text. I find one source saying, without citation, "Modern estimates put the death toll at 15,000" but that's just after citing Niall Ferguson so I am especially hesitant to trust it. This site has figures of around 10K but I do not know how trustworthy it is. There is a wonderful table in this Defence Journal article but, again, I am uncertain how reliable it is. My hope is that this note, and some of the sources I present, might help or inspire someone with the resources to fill in this important information. Czrisher (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking in subtitle
WP:MOS prohibits linking (or any boldfacing) in subtitles. This should be observed here, as well. If you wish to change the rule, please state the reasons here and also discuss on the policy page. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Place by Gurjars
An editor has persisted in gratuitously inserting Gurjars in a subtitle. The article is otherwise structured by places, not tribes. To attribute specific places to a tribe seems WP:UNDUE and appears to violate the WP:KISS rule. Student7 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This now appears to be WP:SOAPBOX for tribes. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Scarequotes and tendentious details about rifling
(copies from Student7's discussion page) I've undone your latest edits on the Rebellion page as it looks as if you have misunderstood where the material is in the article. I understand your motives, and agree with them, but I don't think it worked in this case.31.185.245.6 (talk) 10:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Not too sure what you mean by "understand my motives and agree with them." Let's take the easy one first.
 * There are WP:SCAREQUOTES around the word "native." The unit was either native or it wasn't. There is no reason to call attention to the word by inserting quotes around it per Wikipedia's Manual of Style.
 * The second part: is it worth distracting the reader from the Rebellion by telling someone interested in history the details of a weapon that was used? This seems WP:TRIVIA to this article, while it may be important in the article about the weapon itself. Telling the reader that there were significant differences in weapon capability, is important, but the details are best left elsewhere for those interested primarily in weaponry and not in history. (It's sort of like telling a reader that John Wilkes Booth shot Lincoln with a revolver. Then describing the revolver in detail, which detracts from Wilkes jumping on the stage, shouting something and galloping off into the night. And it being part of a general plot. The high level stuff is important. The details of Booth's revolver can be left for another time or another article). Student7 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:STATUSQUO applies here. It is up to the editor adding the new material to defend why the reader should be distracted by lengthy explanations that have little to do with the article. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Diff of disputed edit. Isn't the problem easily remedied by changing native (which does have a colonialist ring to it) to Indian? Abecedare (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Have copyedited the paragraph. Still needs to be sourced though. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

historians who are quoted have to be named in text says Wiki rule
One historian here feels that names of historians should not be mentioned, only their ideas. That violates Wiki rules when a quotation is involved. See WP:PLAGIARISM which states: '' In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material (for example: "John Smith wrote that the building looked spectacular," or "According to Smith (2012) ..."). The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more. Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see that it relies heavily on someone else's ideas, without having to search in the footnote.'' Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I may have come across heavy handed in my edit summary. That's not what I meant.  Sorry also for taking time to reply—I had to rummage through the edit history of the page, and it took me a while to figure out how and when the section was created, as no edit summary gave any clue nor any sudden addition of many bytes of data.  It seems that the "Historiography" section use to be "Debate about character," which you changed in this edit.  First, was it wise to change the section name?  Historiography, as its Wikipedia page says, "is the study of the methodology of historians in developing history as an academic discipline, and by extension is any body of historical work on a particular subject. The historiography of a specific topic covers how historians have studied that topic using particular sources, techniques, and theoretical approaches."  The preexisting content was more a survey of the various characterizations of the rebellion than a historiography proper (ie survey of approaches, methodology).  Second, I certainly did not mean that no names be mentioned, rather that the methods and approaches be given prominence (with the names appearing in the footnotes, as the "Debate about character" section was doing.)
 * Unfortunately, I no longer have to time clean up the section myself, but I would prefer that it not become a selective bibliography with more name and less methodology. Ideally, only the methodology etc should be mentioned in the text, without actual quotations or even close paraphrases (as one methodology typically has many adherents), with author name in the footnote.  Note that we are not directly quoting anyone, just summarizing the approach they, and others similar minded, have used to study the topic.  Best regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PS I won't be able to reply for a while.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * PPS An extreme example of what I am worried about it is, "Sir Issac Newton, the Regius Professor of Natural Philosophy at the University of Cambridge, and Master of the Mint has favored the fluxions approach to the problem of gravity in his Philosophae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, whereas Professor Albert Einstein, IBM Professor at the Institute of Advanced Study, in his seminal paper of 1915, has favored Riemannian Geometry." What is the poor reader going to come away with?  :)    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * the historiography section is not about Newton & Einstein (that's "history")--it would be about how different historians have conceptualized what they did, what was new, where they got the ideas, and the impact the ideas made. In our 1857 case historians have used a lot of different approaches and it's useful to sort them out for the readers. The popular historians use a story-telling narrative (of the sort that becomes a movie script), while the scholars are more abstract, more comparative, and emphasize complex forces and social structures more than the colorful personalities or horrible massacres or exciting rescues. People who want the narrative can simply skip this short section, but university level students will use the historiography to write their papers and get leads on further study. Rjensen (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to interpret the Newton and Einstein example literally, that is your prerogative. Again, I am suggesting that your edit of two years ago was not entirely warranted.  It does not help that you are now randomly tacking on (and at the top of the section no less) some articles you found on a few historians, and sending students down the wrong path.  What is the point of mentioning Ireland and India and swadeshi in describing the work of Chris Bayly on the mutiny?  If you had summarized the novelty in Empire and Information, Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire or Ruler's Townsmen ..., or described the Cambridge School, it might have helped a student looking for a survey of historians, methods, sources, influences, etc.  (In fairness to you, the Stokes paragraph is better.)  More importantly for me, before you changed the name of the section and added one sentence at the top, the text had some cohesion, even though it was not scholarly or stellar in its prose.  You've opened the article to other such additions (some bordering on the eccentric such as the one about the popular historian&mdash;whose name I'm forgetting&mdash;and who translated the manuscripts for him).   Wikipedia articles are not meant to be disconnected pieces of narrative, each of which, once added to a page, is inviolate.  Neither do addition of text become justifiable because they might help students study a topic better.  Anyway, like I said earlier, I no longer have the time clean up this article.  Perhaps you could move the additions that you and others have added after the name change to the bottom of the section; it will at least read more smoothly.  This is my last post here.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the relevance of your references to Newton and Einstein... We're doing history here not physics. The standard non-controversial terminology is "historiography" and Not "Debate about character"-- a phrase that seems to never be used in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles cover a lot of different topics, And they're prepared by many different editors. So to ask for stylistic uniformity is irrelevant.  If you have some good ideas on the historiography, please add them. Please do not erase other people's work, especially not with incoherent comments that you're not serious about. And Yes additions of text are justified because they help the reader-- what justification is better?  The users who want a traditional narrative history should read one of the many books that we list for them.  This article is for people who want an encyclopedia article that covers many different phases of an important issue, and tells the reader what the different interpretations and perspectives were. Rjensen (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the distorted account of Bayly's work on the rebellion. The term swadeshi did not exist until the early 1900s. Bayly, in fact, says something different in that article: "Nevertheless, in 1857 most Irishmen still seem to have identified with British rule in India because of the threat the Rebellion posed to overseas European communities. This was because the Irish were not only the victims of the imperial state, but also some its greatest beneficiaries, a position which hardly changed through to the 1930s. These benefits flowed both to Protestants and to Catholics, both to North and to South, although unevenly. I will briefly describe Ireland's imperialist history as a background to the full emergence of Irish and Indian nationalism, and their mutual acknowledgement, in the latter part of the nineteenth century." Please don't send students down the wrong path and put words in Bayly's mouth. I have removed that paragraph. Again, it is best not to edit this article on the fly by adding in helter-skelter fashion the source you manage to find at that moment. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We have discussions here BEFORE we erase sourced material. Please do not claim ownership of this article. you're wrong about Bayly's article. he explicitly says "India and Ireland can both be seen as old agro-industrial provinces of Eurasiand ones which were quite rapidly, if only partially deindustrialised at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Their decline was exacerbated by the collapse of British and European demand for their products and the rigorous imposition of free trade: from 1801 in the Irish case and from 1834, in the Indian case. The nationalist slogans of swadeshi in India or 'home production' in Ireland were not tokens of a reinvented mythical past, but a response to very recent economic malformations."   You need to read Bayly's famous The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914 (2003) p 154 to see how he puts India & 1857 in world historical perspective. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read Bayly's later works.  We are supposed to be adding adding historiography specif to the Indian rebellion.  You have added a paragraph, an incidental one, in an incidental work, as emblematic of Bayly's work on the rebellion, at the top of the section.  The rapidly deindustrialized sectors of India's economy were not in regions that rebelled.  On top of that you are spouting Wikipedia banalaties as if I don't know them.
 * No, it is not a narrow article. Why should it be? The article is designed to broaden the knowledge of the readership about 1857. Baily has probably the broadest view of all, with an important article comparing the situation to the British rule in Ireland. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is not to invent our own set of priorities, but to Follow the scholarship. Bayly represents one of the most important to of the scholars of the subject, and his priorities carry a lot of weight. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead revision
I have revised the lead, made it more balanced and comprehensive. Some reliably sourced text had been removed. Other unreliably-sourced text had been added. In the coming days, I'll update the citations in the lead. Long-term watchers of the page may want to keep a sharper eye out for unhelpful edits during that duration. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  08:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Rebellion of 1857. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818120054/http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/history/primarydocs/War%20of%201857/Indian%20Mutiny--Ch1/letter%2031.htm to http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/history/primarydocs/War%20of%201857/Indian%20Mutiny--Ch1/letter%2031.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The 160th anniversary
As it is already 10 May in India, the 160th anniversary of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, I thought I'd post an etching and accompanying story about the resort town of Nynee Tal (today Nainital) from August 15, 1857, which I found in the loft. I have added it to the article, and am reproducing it here. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  23:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia India pages is totally compromised by the presence of jingoist writers
If this mutiny was pro-'India' (which was never there till 1947), then all the others who supported the British rule including the majority people of this geographical area (Sikhs, southerners, and even the Gurkhas) should be anti-nationals. What kind of an idiotic history writing is this? If NCERT textbooks are to be copied into Wikipedia, then what kind of an encyclopedia is this?

The other mistake in this article wording would be the use of the word 'European' when actually the word 'British' would have been more appropriate. The words 'Europe' and 'British' are understand as antonyms in many locations in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.21.213 (talk) 10:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * 'India' and 'Indian' implies the modern state of India whilst those locals on both sides came from what is now Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, India, Burma and Afghanistan. The use of 'British' is troublesome as a substantial minority of the Europeans, military or civilian, in the Company's employ were not British or being from what is now the Republic of Ireland would not count be seen as. Also 'British' helps expand the false belief that the rebellion happened under the Raj.146.90.34.182 (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The contention about the term 'India' is not understandable! India the nation and India the subcontinent are different. The explanation given seems to be some nonsense with no connection to the query.

As to the argument about the word, 'European', of employees of the Company being from non-English origin: The Company is generally and intelligently understood as British. If the nationality of the employees are being taken into account, then the Company should be mentioned as 'Indian Subcontinent' company or even as 'Indian' company. For most of its employees were from the subcontinent. However, it would be most unintelligent manner to define a company by employee-nationality.

As to the Irish element and such talk, Ireland was fully a part of Britain, in the same manner the areas of current-day Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of Indian subcontinent. Nowhere in the history of British-India, does one identify the people from those places as Pakistanis and Banglaeshies. Even though in the case of British-India, it would have been more apt to mention each population by their traditional name, such Tamils, Travancoreans, Bengalies, Mugals, Kashnmiris, Malabaris, Mysorians, Marathas etc. instead mentioning them all as 'Indians' whenever anyone of them stand against the Company.

It is seen in the article that anyone who stood against the Company rule was 'Indian' and anyone who stood with the Company is either one of the mentioned groups or European!

It has been noted that elsewhere on Wikipedia, even Scots are not mentioned as British, but as Scots. As if Scotland is a different nation. If that be case, who is a British? If the word British is to mean only people from England, it might be a terrific use of national identification by Wikipedia.

As to the rebellion, it was a small mutiny that took place under the Company 'raj'. How anyone who knows anything about the history of the subcontinent will get false beliefs is not understood, other than that Indian-Wikipedia is creating false definitions to create confusions. In this article, the minor group of rioters are mentioned as 'Indians' while the huge content of populations like the Sikhs, Pattans, Madras, and many independent kingdoms like Travancore etc. who literally stood on the company's side, are mentioned by their traditional names. It would be more correct to mention the rioters and mutineers by the minor group identification, instead of placing them on the other huge number of populations who lived and live in the subcontinent.

Is there something wrong with the common administrators of Indian pages on Wikipedia. These pages have a smell of an Indian government propaganda page.

SIGNED --117.201.246.77 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

No,you stupid,republic of India was founded in 1947,not India,learn history.07:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Ovsek (talk)

Keep your 'you stupid' to your self. If this is the way you want to teach history, keep that for your own children. There was no 'India' known to any native person inside the Indian peninsula, before the formation of British-India. It would be quite difficult to come across such claims of being an 'Indian' in any of the writings of old. Moreover, 650 small time kinddom,and at at least a few thousand kings. Most of them could not travel even 10 kms beyond their territory. Then what 'India' are you talking of. Keep your NCERT Text for Indian public exams. However, they do not suit the inside of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.21.213 (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Indians' is also not acceptable. It seems to suggest that all people who lived in the Indian peninsula were 'Indians', and that all these 'Indians' were supportive of the rioters. It is not true. Only a very insignificant percentage of the population had any support for this mutiny, led by low rank soldiers of the East India Company army in Bengal. Even in this army, many did not support. Most civilians did not support, other than the aristocracy that had lost its power. Most parts of peninsula did not supp A mutiny has ro ort this rioting. Sot it is an unreasonable thing to use the term 'Indians' for the rioters. It simply adds everyone to a group, to which most did not belong. If the rioters are Indians, then what are the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.253.97 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Sepoy mutiny was just a minor military mutiny. However, the Englishmen who came to this geographical area was overwhelmed by the size of the place to imagine that it was a revolt that was taking place all over the geographical area. Truth is that most of the population stood by the British rulers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.16.154 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC) Remove this p please.Slatersteven (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the title of this section, but the above editors have a point. India was not a single unit, then or now (included Pakistan then at best). The Rebellion is known universally in the English-speaking world outside of India, as the "Sepoy Mutiny." Student7 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at the Nomenclature and Historiography sections of the article for a discussion of the topic. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the naming of this article offensive and racist. A mutiny has to be against your own government. Since the british were a foreign power in India, the only way to describe the events of 1857 is a war of independence. Why is it racist? Because a mutiny assumes an event where people were unhappy with their own government, and were revolting against one aspect of governance. Whereas in 1857 we were trying to throw of british enslavement of India. Calling it a mutiny is a white European perspective, that belittles the event, and the people who fought and died for that Independence. It would be like calling the American Revolution the American Mutiny. it belittles the event. Dark knight212 (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Very true. It's unfair and racist to call it mutiny or rebellion. It was resistance against foreign invaders. So it was war of independence and not rebellion. Saimashafait (talk) 11:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The British didn't 'invade' India. The company entered the Indian subcontinent with the consent of the many and varied local rulers.


 * The sepoys were in the pay of the company which meant that they owed an allegiance to the company and were required to obey the company's representative's lawful orders. Going against this meant it became in law a mutiny.


 * For it not to have been a mutiny the people concerned would have needed to have given notice of their resignations and then to have left the company's service. Still being employed by the company made it in law a mutiny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.56 (talk) 10:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It had a number of characteristics, including that of a Mutiny and of a civil insurrection (as well as a civil war).Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Casualties
Hoe can causality figures get outdated? The lowest figure in 100,000 and is reliably sourced Modern sources do not trump this, they just raised the upper limit.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't know. ... I do note that the 160th anniversary is coming up, on May 10, and there will be more edits, especially by drive-bys who are chagrined that their local area's historic contribution is going unrecorded.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

A couple more points, please will edds not misrepresents sources. Secondly my copy of Dalrymple does not give a figure for total dead on pages 4 or 5.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The article currently states as a fact: "The war and its aftermath resulted in the deaths of at least 800,000 people". This looks to me like the contributor who picked that number simply went for the highest estimate that could be found. Is there a better way of doing this? We all love big numbers, but could a more skeptical approach, such as "estimates range between 50,000 and 1,000,000" be employed, with some critical commentary on the assumptions made in arriving at the varying numbers? (E.g., are the larger numbers arrived at by adding in the deaths resultant from cholera epidemics that swept India afterward?) Maybe Lewis F. Richardson's research on casualty figures in major armed conflicts (Statistics of Deadly Quarrels), flawed and imperfect though it is, could be drawn on as a source here? As I recall, Richardson made an effort to come up with consensus numbers, although his bias was toward picking numbers that would fit on a statistical curve he was trying/hoping to find in the data. Since Richardson's main interest was in determining the size/scale of each of the hundreds of conflicts he looked at (Richardson was a meteorologist and saw war as something like a hurricane, and wanted to come up with a logarithmic scale for the intensity of conflicts); and since the key metric he used was the number of casualties/deaths, he would have had a keen interest in determining whether the Sepoy Mutiny was/was not on the same scale as the American Civil War and the Tai-Ping Rebellion, which occurred around the same time. Not saying Richardson is always right--not even close, I would venture--but his figures, whatever they are (I have not checked) might offer a starting point. 65.88.88.127 (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)