Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 4

Mutiny to Rebellion
RslochWhen I added 'Although mutinies were not rare in Company controlled India' I am referring to mutinies not rebellions. Can the anon person who keep changing it to 'rebellions' please take note. 17:41, 22 September 2007 (GMT)

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

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

Cartidge
Given that the aproved way of loading the cartidge was tearing not bitting the top off the use of the nlater as an explaination (in part for the mutiny) seems to give a ratehr biased view.

"Rebellion" not "Mutiny" please. The main point of view is that weather or not the cartridges were greased with cow and pig fat, the Sepoys believed they were. When the company authorised them to tear rather than bite this just seemed to prove their suspicions. [Pagren 11/07/2007]

The comapny did not authorise it, it was the ofical practice within the Britsh army as a whole, it was not a concession to the mutinous Sepoys (by the way I will choose to refer to it according to how I wish, as I do not tell you how to name it I would request the same respect back). The implication in the article does not make it clear it was a rounour not a fact that they had to bite it. (SS)

the text says 'To load the new rifle, the sepoys had to bite the cartridge open.' This is not true. (SS)

SS, If you look into the archives of this discussion page you will see that lengthly arguments have ensued after the conflic was fleetingly referred to as "Mutiny" or "War of Independence". Its probably best we don't start repeating these arguments. For the time being it actually looks as if we can all move forward and perfect the article. Perhaps you didn't see the word PLEASE after my request. If you are unhappy with that passage in the article please change it. But I'm pretty sure British troops bit the cartridge ends off, and didn't tear it with their hands. The reasoning behind this is that when you're getting vollys of shot plying into you you dont want to be fiddling about with a bit of paper. Biting the cartridge was quicker and easier to drill. [Pagren]

I have to admit error, I was working from post Mutiny drill, the pre-mutiny drill book clearly says Bite.

Why has part of the last line (including the ID of the sender) been deleted? Slatersteven 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Massacre
The artical seems to imply that the British were first to commit atoricities (stating that earlier reports of Muntinner attrocities at merrut) were 'wild rumour' Offical figures say that One invilid sugeon 4 male civilains 8 women and 8 children were killed. It seems therefore to me to be rather biased to imply this is a wild rumour.

Official figures from the British East India Company or the British Government? A very neutral source indeed.... Jvalant 14:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No more neutral then the Indian sources, moreover the names of the victims are known, as are how they died, its why they are the offical ones. Morover as the article uses for much of its information the official records it seems odd to discount other parts of the ofical version just to present a version of events at variance with that offical version. (SS)

In what way does the (unrelated) fact that Sepoys had to bite the bullet have to do with neutrality of sources? Or if any civilians were murderd at Merrut?SS 26 Aug 07. —The preceding signed but undated.

Why was the post from flamingsabre removed as this puts the above stament out of context? (Slatersteven 20:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

slaughtered
The troops of the besieging force proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens were slaughtered in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian 'collaborators' that had been killed by the rebel Sepoys. This seems to imply a difference between what the British and Mutinous Sepoys did, surely slaughtering innocent civilians is the same regardless of nationality? it should thus read

The troops of the besieging force proceeded to loot and pillage the city. A large number of the citizens were slaughtered in retaliation for the Europeans and Indian 'collaborators' that had been slaughtered by the rebel Sepoys. (SS)

In a war, people or soldiers are KILLED. After a war, CIVILIANS are SLAUGHTERED. It is not TOO difficult to read. --Bobby Awasthi 09:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The text refers to the evetns at Delhi after the Seige, but before hostilities ceased, the aftermath of the war is coverd by the section entitled the devils wind. Besides which to ,y (ratehr odd) sense of morality are civilian us a civilian (and is some one who is not under arms) regardles of the status of any conflict. Slatersteven 17:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]

Re: Besides which to ,y (ratehr odd) sense of morality are civilian us a civilian (and is some one who is not under arms) regardles of the status of any conflict I thought west invented the word Collateral Damage to differentiate the loss of lives in a war from the ones lost afterwards or before. My morality did not invent the differentiation. The aftermath of the war, was devil's wind and the hostilities only ceased AFTER THAT was over. FYI, some rebels in north were fighting guerilla wars until late 1858 when the devil's wind was over in most of the country. So where would your timeline differentiate devil's wind from the actual war or rebellion. --Bobby Awasthi 09:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The west may have inveted the term Collateral Damage I did not. My morality does differentiate between non-combatants and combatants, and I do not care what a spokesperson, or politican, tells me I should think. A dead child is a dead child no matter when it is killed, and whilst you can so that those actualy killed as a result of accidents in battle are not in the same catagory of out and out vileness as those kiled during lulls in the fighting this can only be applied during actual (and active) fighting, not after (and even then you should make every effort to avoid civilain loss) not in lulls.

Are you saying then that untill the British stoped killing people the war was not over? Slatersteven 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]]

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

The language of that article, the peacock / weasel words; the glorification of British and aides; and the defamation of rebels (or freedom fighters whatever) in that page is agonizing to say the least. I had noticed it some time back, but am waiting to rewrite most of the article myself. I am sure I can refer to this article for clearing out a lot of fair-coloured garbage. --Bobby Awasthi 10:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I noticed changes from "Rebel" to "Mutineer" in the article and have frequently changed this. However, I'm not going to edit it anymore. After seeing how Jvalant came into it with his typical "holier than thou" attitude and changed/deleted a large amount of what was there into what best suited his beliefs, including removing the paragraph on the fateghar fugitives it seems obvious that the article will become as much a editors battlefield as this page. One thing I would like to suggest though would be to move alot of the write up we have on the Siege in the rebellion page to the siege page (like what was done to the Lucknow accounts). That way it'll keep the rebellion page shorter and easier to read and if people want to read into it with more detail they can go to the seperate article. What we have now is two account almost the same size. I tried to put a few sources in the Cawnpore article but as I don't know how to do that it has been difficult (one of the souces was to be the book "Our Bones Are Scattered") which is where most of the article came from. [Pagren 11/07/2007]\

Weasel
While I can understand Jvalant's arguments, as well as the arguments made by other editors, I as somebody is fairly neutral came to be a bit dissapointed by the way the article goes about stating "Indian patriots", Indian "Collaaborators", "Savage Sepoys" etc etc. It is important to note that these inarguably satisfy the following quoted section from the weasel words clarification; The problem with weasel words isn't that what they state is false. Clearly that latter statement isn't; some people do say that. The problem is that truth, while obviously welcome and necessary, is not enough to constitute encyclopedic writing in and of itself. The progression of an article must also be relevant and informative, and this statement about what some-people-say is neither. Who are these people, one might ask? When, where and why did they say that? What kind of bias might they have? Exactly how many is some, and why is this of any significance, anyway? and Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, aspires to be authoritative by definition. Including the opinions of "some people" in an encyclopedia article implicitly gives credibility to their opinion and vouches for its relevance, because if it weren't important or relevant, it wouldn't have been included. Given the unique nature and status of Wikipedia, this makes its articles troublingly easy to exploit in this way in order to spread hearsay, personal opinion and even propaganda. The first line of defense against this is verifiability policy, which provides specific criteria for the sort of support a claim must have to survive a challenge in article space. The use of weasel words undermines this policy, and this is why editors are encouraged to, as per the title of this guideline, avoid them.

We have a section in this article that deals with how the mutiny/rebellion/war forged a national identity and is still considered important in Indian History today for this matter, and no, it is not propaganda, it is how it is percieved in India, so to those who will make an opposing argument, please consider the opposing PoV and perception before editing later sections that deals with these issues of modern day India and the mutiny. As for editors (including Jvalant) who see it neccessary to point out that it was not a mere mutiny, and that there were local support involved, and that it is percieved as a defining and distinguish event of the Indian independence movement, please do so in the relevant section. In the mean time, again, avoid weasel words on part of both PoV editors. As for the title of the article, we have had offers from differnt quarters earlier this year and last, a number of them an "accurate description" of the events of the uprising. I really think we need to reach a consensus and stop haggling on what seems to me (I am an Indian) to be petty issues that irritatingly diluting the encyclopaedic and factual description of this very very historical and notable event. Rueben lys 12:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC) {{

This in a way sums up the Mutiny, it waas all things to all men (and most of those savage, from both sides). (SS)

The rebellion now spread beyond the armed forces, but it did not result in a complete popular uprising as its leaders hoped.
The rebellion now spread beyond the armed forces, but it did not result in a complete popular uprising as its leaders hoped. IS there a source for this? (SS).

I personnaly have no idea where it came from but why does it matter? 26/08/2007 Flaming Scimitar 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC), 26 August 2007 (UTC))

Because as an encyclopaedia Wikipedia will be used as an authoritative source, as such when claims are made is is usefull if they are backed up with sources. Is there any evidence as to who the leaders were? SS Aug 26 07.


 * Isn't it self-evident? If the rebellion had turned into a "complete popular uprising", the British would have been thrown out of India in jig time and Indian independence would have occurred in 1857 instead of 90-odd years later.--Oscar Bravo 09:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the British still had command of the sea and could bring in reinforcements. Even if it become a popular uprising old indian rivalries would have resufaced and India as a political entity did not exist at the time. India might have fallen to another European power, the worst case would have been if India had been partitioned like Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.186.1.192 (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It also does not make it evidant who these leaders were. I ask woh were these leaders, what evidance is there that they expected a mass national rising, and what evidance is there for their diapointment. As to the idea it would have led to Indian independace early, yes it would have (assuminig no one else steped in (such as Russia)) but as a series of smaller states, India as it exists today wouold not have existed (as it was a product of the Raj) Slatersteven 13:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]


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

Sorry for not being clearer but I cut and pasterd the line in the article I felt needed more clarification with regards to sources. One of the probloms with the idea that this was a planed rising is that none of the Indina leaders appear to have been exaclty rapid in comeing forward to back the mutiny (as it was at the time) in Merrut. Slatersteven 13:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Mangal Pandey
It has been writen in a number of histories of the Mutiny that Pandey was high on Opium and Bhang (and that he addmited this), why therefore is this not mentioned and been removed.

NUMBER OF HISTORIES... first of all there is only one history, maybe you meant number of accounts. Still, it is a very generic statement, can you please enlighten us with some NON-BRITISH accounts which state so? Seems you are more concerned with the respect that one individual is getting, irrespective of whether it was on accidental reasons or intentional. --User:Bobby Awasthi 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should read something along the lines of "the British claimed that Pandey was high on Opium and Bhang at the time of his outburst and this was apparently addmitted at his court-marshal" I do not feel it should be left out completely. If that is the case maybee we should delete half the article because there are countless PRO-INDIAN and PRO-BRITISH sources? I say we put it back in but indicate it is a BRITISH ACCOUNT. please don't just leave out half the argument all the time. [PAGREN 16/07/2007]

The british never CLAIMED that... and it was never ADMITTED as... Classic twisting as far I read. A british source says, "On March 29 Mangal Pandey of the 34th N. I. shot at two officers, tried to shoot himself, and was put in the hospital. Other sepoys said that he had taken too much bhang (cannabis). He and another were tried and executed, and later many called the mutineers Pandeys." . Obviously a STATEMENT (which could be a press-ganged one too) from other sepoys was used as EVIDENCE in a classic example of the court martial procedures which were later officially acknowledged as biased in favour of british officers and against native soldiers. (Dont ask me to cite this one again now. Please read talk archives).

Another, this time American, says, "On 29 March (Sunday) 1857 before 19 Native Infantry had still reached Barrackpore, Mangal Pandy a Hindu Sepoy of 34 Native Infantry at Barrackpore loaded his musket and went to his regiment's quarterguard. Here he started exhorting all the sepoys present to join in a rebellion to overthrow the EEIC.The Sepoys on duty at the quarterguard made no attempt to restrain him. Once the European Sergeant Major appeared Mangal Pandy fired at him and missed. The Regiment Adjutant Lieutenant Baugh was informed about this incident and he at once galloped to the quarterguard. Mangal Pandy fired at him also, and killed his horse with his second shot. This was followed by a hand to hand sword fight in which Baugh was wounded. Mangal Pandy meanwhile was over powered by Shaikh Paltoo, Muslim Sepoy! This enabled the wounded European Sergeant Major and the Adjutant to escape. Meanwhile a crowd of Sepoys gathered at the quarterguard and threatened to kill Shaikh Paltoo who had saved the two Britishers. The situation was finally controlled by Major General Hearsay who personally arrived at the scene. Mangal Pandy tried to commit suicide with his musket but was only wounded138.

Finally on 31st March Hearsay ordered disbandment of 19 Native Infantry in the presence of HM 84 Foot and two batteries of field artillery. The 19th Native Infantry behaved in a very obedient manner. Piled up their muskets, belts and bayonets in a very orderly manner. They were given full pay and provided transport at public expense to proceed to their houses. While leaving the parade ground they cheered Hearsay and wished him a long and happy life!. A court martial was ordered in 34 Native Infantry and Mangal Pandy was sentenced to death and executed in March, 1857." I dont think someone high on cannabis would do that. In any case the author here was probably also high and did not mention it anywhere.  Bobby-- 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see why the nationality of an account makes it less reliable then another. 'It has been writen in a number of histories of the Mutiny' seems to be faily unambigous. Thre is not one history of the mutiny, if there were this page of discusion would not exists, we would all agree on what happend. Moreover there are many published histories of the munity not just one. There is a vast body of work that repeats the claim, and not just British. Is tehr any EYE WITNESS (well there seems to be a capital fetish around here) that clealy states he was not high?(SS)


 * The statement of General Hearsey himself, an eye witness to part of the events, after describing how he induced the quarter guard to advance on Mangal Pande by threatening them with his revolver and how Mangal Pande was finally overcome after attempting but failing to take his own life, ran, "I then went, accompanied by Major Ross and my two sons amongst the crowd of sepoys ... [I also told them that] they had not done their duty in allowing their fellow soldier, Mungul Pandy (sic) to behave in the murderous manner he had done. They answered in one voice, ' He is mad, he has taken bhang to excess ' ". At his subsequent court-martial (less than a week later), Mangal Pande stated, "I have been taking bhang and opium of late. I was not aware at the time of what I was doing". He was repeatedly pressed by the prosecuting officers for the names of those who had induced him to mutiny, but he insisted that his actions were his own, and unconscious. The matter is probably impossible to resolve. Mangal Pande may indeed have been doped, or he may have prematurely tried to rebel before his comrades were ready, and afterwards concealed the true cause of his actions to prevent his fellow soldiers being implicated and undoubtedly hanged. All quotes here from Christopher Hibbert, The Great Mutiny, ISBN 0-14-004752-2, p.70 HLGallon 08:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me but the general does not claim that Pandey was not high, nor does he say anything to indicate he was not. In fact he says nothing about his apparent condition at the time of Pandeys ‘revolt’. He does not say (for example, and using the text given by the correspondent) my Sepoys were wrong on this matter, pandey was in his right mind’.(SS)

Balance on sources.
British nationalists (whom Indian might see as racist) claim This seems to be very provocative, ad un-balanced especially when compared with the line. Indian nationalists claim This seems to give a different emphaiss on the two sources. Can this plesase be alterd to a more nueyral wording (such as taking out (whom Indian might see as racist)).

Why don't YOU change the wording in the article to make it more neutral rather than list everything here as this will only trigger off some of the more Nationalistic of those here. It is obvious the article has plenty of weasel words in it and this will continue as it always has. [Pagren 16/07/2007]

Pagren, your suggestion is against the official Wikipedia policy, ''Posting a comment before editing is the best way to avoid misunderstandings. If you are unsure about an edit someone has made, wait a reasonable amount of time to allow them to post a comment. Also, when considering edits, be sure to check the discussion page to see if there are any open or closed discussions on the area you were about to edit. [] It seems you are just getting too sick of Nationalists to follow the policies anymore or is it so that you are not liking others'' disputing and arguing? Bobby 19:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have edited it, and it was alterd back. (SS)

Well...I didn't alter it back...[PAGREN 22/07/2007]

I was not aware I had made an accusation against you (SS)

Right ok many apologies. I did not make any kind of suggestion that you were accusing me of anything SS - I mearly said it wasn't me. Apologies if you misinterpreted. Bobby - by Nationalists I mean both Indian AND British (not just you and Jvalant). I encourage discussion but they (the discussions, not you and Jvalant in particular) tend to just get out of control on this page and turn into huge editing wars or insult matches. Everything seems to have calmed down recently so it'd probably be more constructive if we can keep it that way. Read into this as much as you want. I'm not making attacks or attempting to start arguments; merely trying to keep the excessive slating to a minimum. If you feel this is not the case I am sorry for your misinterpretation. [PAGREN 26/07/2007]

Thats OK no offense taken. (SS 7/28/07).

I am not into reading between the lines until the lines are drawn in own respective spaces. Indian mistresses are still available, the difference being British ones are available too and have as many Indian takers. The fight would never end because supremacy is a cyclic phenomenon. India had many hundreds of years of prime in its own territory, Britain had a few hundred years of prime in everyone else's territory. Now leeching may seem to be an achievement for some while self-praise for others.

What are you replying too?(SS 7/31/07)

Anyways, the point that I wanted to raise is, someone needs to go and read the archives. Nobody has time to keep repeating the same points over and over for every newbie on this page. If he thinks the rebellion was limited to Bengal, I would recommend he be limited to British history pages. Sorry for the language, but it seems Utcursch's revert was considered as useless and the same lie reintroduced couple of weeks later. --Bobby Awasthi 18:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

'British nationalists (whom Indian might see as racist)' was the point I raised, I do not see a mention of Bengal here. But I shall do you the curtosey of replying anyway. I did not claim it was restricted to soley Bengal, I said it was restricted largely to Bengal and centrqal India. As the article itself is the source of this how can it be wrong? (SS 07/31?07)

Where the hell did mistresses come from? I wasn't talking about supremacy or lies or any of that. Why do you even have to start bringing that up again? lol [PAGREN 10/08/2007]


 * Purely as an aside: references to the revolt being confined to "Bengal", might mean the "Bengal Presidency", one of the three administrative divisions into which the East India Company ordered India. The Bengal Presidency spread from the North West Frontier Provinces in the west to Assam in the East, and Kashmir in the north to southern Bundelkhand in the south; over 1000 miles by 500, embracing many different religious and cultural groups. The only homogenous bodies in this area were the East India Company's administrators and the Bengal Army. HLGallon 15:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is what I intended. (SS 8/12/07)


 * Reversion of User:Jvalant's edits - poorly attributed with dubious sources cited, highly POV and ungrammatical. Hence reverted. srs 10:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

srs appears once in a blue moon to behave in a typical Communist Party of India (Marxist) style; and does exactly as them. Reverts without any justifications or arguments (just because I think so). To be precise, as per the Wikipedia policies, the comment above made by srs are only a POV since no justifications and arguments are given to sustain this statement. (Nil source is worse than dubious source). --Bobby Awasthi 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought we was talking about me (SS 8/18/07) I thought Wikipedians look beyond me, and talk us. Just in a lighter vein. --Bobby Awasthi 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Enfield 1853 cartridge grease
Does anyone know what the Enfield 1853 rifle cartridges were in fact coated with? (Lucas(CA) 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC))

There seems to be no firm evidance that Pig or Cow fat were used in the manafacture of the cartridges, in fact there is no specific type of fat used. The formula is Five parts Talow, Five parts stearine and one part wax. On 27 January 1857 the company orders that cartidges were to be supplied ungreased and that the Sepoys themsleves were to apply the grease. (SS 8/12/07)

Alright, but were the company bought greased cartridges up to January 27 1857. What were they greased with from the factory? This seems like a useful piece of information for the article.(Lucas(CA) 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

The facts of this have never been known. The Indians have always maintained that they were greased with cow and pig fat. The Brits claim this is just a rumor. There is no evidence which can support either side's claim. Indian text-books claim it as a fact that they were greased with cow and pig fat." Jvalant 18:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no documenary (and very little hear say) evidance as to what they were creased with, as there was no officaly approved grease. It might be worth noting though that at the time the rumor had started at the Dum Dum arsenal no manafacturing had actualy begun. The only way you could prove what they wrer greased with wouod be to find shiping dockets or orders from officers as to what greaase to use. (SS 8/14/07)

At the end of the day plenty of rumours were floating around stirring up trouble among the sepoy and native ranks. Then again it is well know that, like half the corporations and the Labour government today, the East India Company liked doing things on the cheap. If you can look into how much cow and pig fat cost at the time and they turn out to be the cheapest you might be able to sway towards a particular conclusion although you'd still never know for certain. One thing does strike me though - why would the company use two kinds of fat? Surely it would be cheaper to use one or the other? This gives the impression it was a rumour aimed at affecting both hindus and muslims rather than one or the other. The company was known for riddiculeing the native religions, but I seriously doubt they would have gone down such a dangerous and risky road - especially since they had suffered mutinies in the army before over the subject of religion. [PAGREN 17:AUG:2007]


 * Grease was essential - either on grooved minié balls (like in US civil war springfield rifles) or with ungrooved balls wrapped in greased cartridge paper (like with p1853 enfields, such as were issued to the sepoys). The standard civil war formula for greasing cartridges was to dip them 50 at a time in a tin frame, into a tub that contained one part tallow (beef fat) to eight parts beeswax. Modern black powder shooters - who have and shoot black powder muzzle loaders for nostalgia / fun - use everything from dental wax to crisco shortening.


 * This blog has quite a lot of text and transcripts from the actual mangal pandey trial - does look accurate from print copies I read some months back, and quotes testimony from sepoys at the trial, who believed that the cartridges felt, and smelt different from previous cartridges, but were not sure.


 * Maj. Gen. Hearsey, commanding Mangal Pandey's regiment, does appear to have been respected by the sepoys, and not of the bible thumping / converting / indian hating stereotype of person ..in fact he did propose to the Governor General, Lord Canning, that sepoys be allowed to grease their own cartridges with ghee (melted butter) / beeswax / mutton fat as per their tastes and inclinations - this proposal was shot down by the Meerut based Adjutant-General of the Army Colonel C. Chester, who felt it would be tantamount to an admission of guilt and could therefore worsen the matter. Hearsey's letter does suggest though that the original batch of cartridges distributed may have had the standard tallow + beeswax grease, and this would have been immediately fixed by replacing the cartridges or allowing the troops to grease their own papers once the issue became known (my guess is that the reason would be that these were shipped as part of a batch from england rather than being manufactured locally at the Dum Dum arsenal in Calcutta).  srs 17:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They would have looked different they used different paper (this also cropped up as part of the British plot rumour, different paper must be contaaminaing, in fact what ever the Briitsh did seemed to be part of a de-casting plot). Good point about cheapness, also availability would be an issue too. How common is pig and cow grease in India? It would have to be availible in bulk and at the right price. (SS) 8/18/07).

Was there ever any rumours from other arsenals regarding the contaiminating nature of the cartidges, and was there ever more then one rumour reagarding Dum Dum? (SS 18/8/05)


 * Dum Dum was the primary arsenal at that time - and given that Calcutta was a major port as well as the East India Company's headquarters in India at that time, that is where any new weaponry would arrive from England. The one rumor was enough - as it goes .. a "high caste" sepoy was asked for a drink of water by a "low caste" khalasi - a porter / camp follower at the Dum Dum arsenal.  Caste discrimination made the sepoy angrily refuse to give him water, whereupon the Khalasi told him that he and all the other high caste people in the company's army would lose caste by biting into cartridges greased with cow and pig fat.  Biting cartridges was the accepted way to load a musket since the very early days of paper cartridges (as opposed to loading with loose powder from a powder horn, wrapping a bullet in a greased patch of leather and ramming it into the barrel).    srs 10:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Any locally manufactured cartridges would therefore have been greased with mutton fat or wax, keeping in mind religious and caste sensibilities (not due to political correctness.. simply to ensure that they could recruit locals). I suspect that a new batch of cartridges, already factory greased in England with the usual tallow / lard + wax mixture, was distributed to some troops, probably at the nearby army rifle range, per Gen. Hearsey's letter in my earlier edit to this page), before all the other troops got new cartridges, with different paper but greased with something more appropriate than beef or pork fat.  That would explain the origin of the rumor, Gen. Hearsey's admission that the greased cartridges did exist, as well as scenes during the trial where the cartridges displayed apparently proved not to be greased with pork or beef at all.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hserus (talk • contribs).

Do we know the name or the regiment of the Sepoy? or indead either of the involved parties named. The problom with one rumour is (as I sugested) it's hardley daming evidance, it is (no matter how oft repeated) one rumour. SS August 21, 2007

Hindi Newspapers
Hindi newspapers are not a valid source according Hserus. And why are the contemporary articles not valid? I'd rather trust current sources than Victorian sources still carrying the white man's burden. Jvalant 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, Dainik Bhaskar is not a "random Hindi newspaper" - it's probably read by more people than the Telegraph.

If you do have sources - real ones - put them in. Else stop vandalizing the page. Jvalant 11:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

What are real sources? (SS 18/8/07)

Non-victorian sources is what I talking to. Jvalant 18:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should they be considered any less reliable then modern sources, both are affected by the bias of the writers? Moreover whilst Victorian sources may be biased they are at least written from the perspective of actually witnessing the events (even if through the prism of bigotry), whilst contemporary accounts are written from the perspective of opinion. They are often (by Wikipedias own definition) secondary accounts at best and may (more) likely to be tertiary accounts, and therefore not reliable enough to be used as back up for an argument (and therefore less value then primary accounts). Moreover has the newspaper in question an unbroken record of never publishing opinion, or mis-representing facts to put a slant on a story. Has it never published stories that have turned out to be false or poorly researched? (SS 8/18/07)

Go ahead and give me an example from the newspaper where the facts have been mis-represented? Jvalant 20:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Moreover whilst Victorian sources may be biased they are at least written from the perspective of actually witnessing the events (even if through the prism of bigotry), whilst contemporary accounts are written from the perspective of opinion. So you admit the fact that they MAY BE biased and even if through the prism of bigotry... I smile at the reference that they ACTUALLY WITNESSED the events UNLIKE Indian sources. You mean to say the entire Indian population in 1857 was either deaf or dumb or insane. No, probably you mean to say the country called India never had any media or news sources WAY BACK in 1857. Well, just a reminder, you are talking about a country which discovered the zero that you use often for calculating your salary, the same country which is now proven to have had written records of what your Sir Isaac Newton claimed to have discovered in his entire lifetime, at least 300 years before his birth. Yes, I agree that official records are not available from the other side, for a simple reason of the Victorian sources having ensured killing them in the next 90 years. That does not wipe off unofficial accounts which got published later and became secondary sources (as per wikipedia policy on references). Newspapers are also listed on that page of Wikipedia. I honestly believe the page does not mention British (or for that matter Indian) Books as the only authentic source. --Bobby Awasthi 15:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course I admit the possibility of biased, all history is perceived thru the prism of our personality and beliefs. The problem with un-official accounts (what ever you mean by that term) is how verifiable are they? Unless you can question the source (or at least check the account against verifiable records) you have to accept the statement on faith. It’s why I dislike using only one history (or indeed one side of the argument). Of course if more the one person has questioned (or used) a source (independently) then you have reason (assuming that their versions tally) to believe that there may be some basis in fact. I was not aware I was claiming that only Victorian (I thought we were talking about ‘Victorian’, there are still British people about, and they still publish books) sources should be used, I was asking why they should not be. I believe that wikipeida also asks that source should be in preferably in English, is there an English language edition of the newspaper in question, so we can all check the source? (Slatersteven 18:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC))
 * Re: I believe that wikipeida also asks that source should be in preferably in English; I havent found any such rule or policy anywhere on Wikipedia. WP:RSUE clearly says the following:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. ''Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.'' Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English: Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.. In case of most other language newspapers referred or cited (by me and Jvalant); the qualification of them being mainstream is met with the fact that both 'Dainik Jagran' & 'Dainik Bhaskar' have a readership 10 times greater than the best selling English Newspaper of India (Times of India) plus TOI is not even published from those cities where these papers are read (the cities which lost prominence after independence like Jhansi, Kanpur & Barrackpore, too important on this article though). Remember the highlighted assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality which in this case there is none. That is probably the reason for your non-acceptance of most citations and references. The situation is further worsened by certain chaste secularist /communist fly-by-delete editors from India with their personal agendas of becoming icons of Indian Modernity. --Bobby Awasthi 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: is there an English language edition of the newspaper in question, so we can all check the source? Since you wish to have an ENGLISH edition of a HINDI newspaper; on a lighter note, can you provide me a videotape of Queen Elizabeth speaking Hindi? Believe me you, if she says in Hindi that you are the queen and not her, I would believe that too. Sometimes the arguments here seem to be touching extreme. --Bobby Awasthi 09:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Define equal quality. It seems to me that the definiton os what is a source of equal value seems to be being judged by wre the source comes from. I was not aware that this was a page about the British Monarchy, I appoloigse for not realising that. Slatersteven 17:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Although I can waste my time defining Equal Quality, I never said the newspapers cited were of Equal Quality. I meant that they are of at least 5 times BETTER quality than the most read English newspaper of India, considering the fact that they are read by 11 times more population and giving allowance of 50% of this population being either morons or so-called nationalists. This still leave 5-6 times more people than those living in an Indian English Utopia like some of those fly-by-delete editors on this page. I was not aware that just a cross reference of a young man reading hindi to an old woman speaking english would disturb someone so much. Apologies. --Bobby Awasthi 09:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Size of readership does not imply higher standerds, The Sun is read by more people then the Times but I doubt you would find any serious accademic who would use the Sun as a source over the Times, or claim it's equality as a source. I also doubt that any serious accademic would use a newspaper, period (given that (with the exception of Historical periodicals, which are very rarely daily) they tend to prefer books, writien by other accademics, or first hand sources). I would also point out that the debate was aboout an Indian Daily (Hindoo) newpaper being a more reliable source then Victorian (or British) books. Your cross referance did not disturb me (nor did I give that impresion) I just admited that I did not reliase that this page was about the British Monarchy, I thougt it was about the Indian Mutiny, and whilst the Queen |(hip hip Horrah) may be old she's not that old. Slatersteven 18:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Either way - is there a trustworthy English language newspaper which contradicts the material of the Hindi newspaper? If there is, then there is room for both views. The non-availability of English news means that the Hindi newspaper needs to be used till then. Jvalant 06:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I have never botherd to look, I do not trust newpapers enought to use them as a source over books about a subject (and I belive that there are a few that contradict the Hindu newpapers, some of which are not even British). Besides which ghow do you define trust worthy, again there seems to be an attepmt to indtroduce some kind of quality control, but with no definition of what that quality is Slatersteven 11:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Hindu newspapers? Surely you mean Hindi ones? Jvalant 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologise I of course (I think, I assume that Hindi is the language and Hindu is the race) meant Hindi. Slatersteven 13:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]

The overrunning of the Merrut Garrison
the Indian troops overrun the base and continued their advance. I was not aware that the British troops in Merrut wre overrun (and by implication wiped out, or at least driven from thier positions. In fact I seem to remebr readinf that there was in fact no significant millitary action as the British did nothing. SS August 25, 2007

My understanding was that the British garrison was just extraordinarily slow in reacting, they were not overrun (the women and children were overrun and massacred but not the troops) - but there was an engagement between the british garrison and the Mutineers as they were leaving for Dehli. From what I remember reading the British withdrew and let the Mutineers leave because they still weren't sure what was going on at the time. I'm sure over half the Dehli Siege force was made up of the meerut garrison - dead people don't tend to be very good at laying siege to cities lol ;o) [Pagren 07/09/2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk) 09:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think thats what I said (and in some repects in more then one discusion, you seem to accept that civilians were slaughterd at Merut) Slatersteven 17:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]].

New Book
http://www.guardian.co.uk/india/story/0,,2155324,00.html

Hopefully, this books will shed more light on the chain of events. Jvalant 08:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

10 million dead? What rubbish - how are you supposed to tax the stuffing out of a country you control if you have wiped out that many people - I'm sorry but come on...comparing it to the holocaust is a bit outrageous - 10 million deaths are a bit hard to cover up - even of the course of 10 years. [Pagren 07/09/2007] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.109.210 (talk) 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Lets not get too hasty, I doubt the figures but lets see the evidance before we dismis if quite this much. Slatersteven 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Those who present claims so outside the accepted narrative must back them up with a lot more than this author has.Rsloch 13:20, 14 October 2007 (BST)

By the way, what was the population of India at the time? Slatersteven 17:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)]]

There wasn't a census for the whole nation then. Given that the population of undivided India in 1947 was 400 million; the population back then would have been substantially less - more like 250 million if not lesser. This is merely conjecture though. Jvalant 07:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

If there was no census back then there how can the author of the book know how many Indinas dies over a 10 year period? Slatersteven 11:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Even if the claim in the book were actually entirely true (and there does seem to be some significant doubt about this), the claim that it is the worst genocide in history is clearly just POV by a User, as the reference does not say that. Additionally, Hitler's Germany and Stalins Russia achieved a higher death toll, so it is factually wrong as well as being POV. 6 million in the Holocaust was just the Jews. 1.5 million non-Jews dies in Auschwitz. Then add all the other non-Jews in the other camps. Then add all the mass executions in villages and towns (particularly in the East), then add all the "anti-partisan" squads, etc. etc. Wikipedia gives the figure of 9 to 11 million in the text, but also notes sources giving an estimate of the figure as 17 million, and 26 million. With Stalin, the biggie is usually seen as the forced colectivization of the Ukraine. Far more than 10 million died as a result of that. For the '32-33 famine, the lowest figure is 4.8 million, and the highest very reputable figure is 8 million. on top of that there were the non-famine death - executions, forced marches, gulags. Stalin himself told Churchill the number was 10 million, and there would be little to be gained in Stalin overestimating!! Encarta http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579484/Collectivization.html quotes Conquest with a figure of 14.5 million. I know some people get very Patriotic about some issues, but let's try to be objective, and not just say our opponents "were the worst in History", as History has seen some very bad things indeed. Mao killed quite a lot of people too. I have seen the figure of 70 million. Mariya Oktyabrskaya 20:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Bib-Ghar
"In any case, as with the Bibi-Ghar butchery, the carnage that followed was entirely within the powers of Nana Sahib and his associates to prevent."

What's the proof of this? And Hserus as far as my contributing "half-baked history" is concerned; I don't care much what a janitor thinks - why don't you stick to your janitorial task of cleaning inboxes? Jvalant 10:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree, there is some reason to belive that Nana Sahib may in fact have not have able to control some of the more millitant (and bloodthirsty) elements of the mutineers. If however we accept the idea that this was not the case, and that Nan Sahib did have that powere then the question arrises why did he not stop it? Slatersteven 11:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)]]

No personal attacks
Regarding comments made by several editors in this page '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.'''

Some suggestions:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Politically aimed moves of srs
Re [], srs did not write to the administrator Utcursch who has been recently involved in the page more closely, but chose to write to Ragib (despite his Userpage notice saying he is on break still not removed) because there were clear altercations between Ragib and Jvalant in past. Without waiting for response, a well-designed case [] is reported to the admins. When a detailed response is given along with some questions on the reporting editor's previous positions; the admin on break comes back to respond (neutrally) within an hour! In my mental capacity as a normal human being, the whole episode seems to indicate as too political and vindictive! --Bobby Awasthi 10:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not as much as your edits are - their attribution is rather poor, so far. ACK is not a primary source but it does have a lot more authenticity and research skills behind it than Dainik Jagran does. srs 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont know when you actually read Dainik Jagran or Dainik Bhaskar to make such obnoxious comments. A comic book seems to you more researched and authentic than newspapers which are the primary source of information to over 5 million people? Unfortunately, I am forced to notice that Subramanium is a surname from South of Vindhyas (just read the new term on rediff message board coined by someone - alas again - from south of Vindhyas) and Jagran & Bhaskar are names from North of Vindhyas. It is too difficult to read Macaulay brand of Aryan languages and decipher the authenticity. Btw, just to quote from your icon of authenticity It was while working for The Times of India that he had occasion to witness a quiz contest on Doordarshan, Delhi, in February 1967, in which the participants could answer questions on Greek gods, but could not answer a simple question like "What is the name of the mother of Rama?" Soon after, when he encouraged his nephews and nieces to bring out a manuscript magazine, that too had stories with England as their locale. He realized with a jolt that the youngsters studying in English-medium schools, in particular, are getting alienated from their cultural heritage. [] It seems someone of us here happened to be one of those students whose knowledge is derived from and limited to ACK with a fair amount of garnishing derived later from the Outblazed view of a Third World Country. The problem is, after the bread is half-baked, anyone can only apply butter on surface as Basting, not add butter as an ingredient.
 * And do not comment on the attribution of my edits unless you have really looked into my contribution on this article page. Just for your information, close to a quarter (may be more) of the references/citations on the article page (and majority of them in all-revered ENGLISH), listed towards the end, originated from MY keyboard. This is UNLIKE your contribution three quarters (or more) of which has been limited to reverting/deleting WITHOUT CITING/REFERRING/ARGUING without even bothering to leave a message on the talk page. Go to the history (or even Talk Archives) to notice your own levels of POV-pushing compared to my arguments before editing anything unless of course it is your fly-by-delete contribution. --Bobby Awasthi 16:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And here's [] the height of antipathy:

How the very policies designed to make wikipedia free / fair / unbiased can be abused by "wikipedia lawyers" to enforce their own agenda on a page, and forcibly steer edits in a particular direction. Anything else that anybody posts is branded unsourced, npov, weasel words etc etc and reverted back, editors are accused of sockpuppetry.

The moderation process works for a while after which things return to "normal"

Check Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 and Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 for an example of what I mean. Particularly edits by User:HKelkar, User:Jvalant and User:Bobby Awasthi - as a counterpoint to, say User:Sikandarji

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

This person has even used a professional networking website to talk about PEOPLE. And he claims that some Wikipedia lawyers are enforcing their own agenda and forcing edits in a particular direction. So, whats the right way of forcing own agenda, by garnering public support through blatant lies and accusations on non-wikipedia channels and forcing people psychologically in a particular direction? I pity your level of hatred and self-praise, my friend. I pity you to an extent that I dont even want to argue with you any more. --Bobby Awasthi 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC) And the ANSWER WAS GIVEN TO NOBODY ELSE BUT, JUMMY WALES HIMSELF. He asked what's the most interesting thing you learnt from Wikipedia? So the answer above, in a nutshell is the total achievement of my friend on this site. Gosh, Wikipedia has become a political playground. Possibly, GOODBYE and best wishes, with editors like Suresh Ramasubramanian, this place will soon see many more adios! --Bobby Awasthi 17:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Use of alleged and allegedly
These words crop up especially in the section on the massacre as Cawnpore. I removed them. The events clearly occurred so there is no question of the killings themselves being alleged. What might be alleged is who ordered them or exactly who carried them out.--Oscar Bravo 10:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The sources which point to such alleged killings are hardly neutral. So the alleged stays. Jvalant 06:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you disputing exactly? The identity of the killers? Who gave the order? Or that the killings even occurred? --Oscar Bravo 06:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disputing if the killings even occurred. Jvalant 07:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reverting to a version without the "alleged". The Satichaura Ghat killings did occur.  You can find the names of the dead, starting from Gen. Wheeler, on the walls of All Souls Cathedral in Kanpur.  As for cites - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nana_Sahib has a lot of cites that are relevant.  You can consult Rudrangshu Mukherjee's work on the subject - http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0031-2746(199008)128%3C92%3A%22LLUET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-1  - Also, G. W. Williams, "Memorandum", printed with Narrative of the Events in the NWP in 1857-58 (Calcutta, n.d.), section on Kanpur (hereafter Narrative Kanpur), p. 20: "A man of great influence in the city, and a government official, has related a circumstance that is strange, if true, viz. that whilst the massacre was being carried on at the ghat, a trooper of the 2nd Cavalry, reported to the Nana, then at Savada house, that his enemies, their wives and children were exterminated ... On hearing which, the Nana replied, that |for the destruction of women and children, there was no necessity' and directed the sowar to return with an order to stay their slaughter". See also J. W. Kaye, History of the Sepoy War in India, 1857-58, 3 vols. (Westport, 1971 repr.), ii, p. 258. (This reprint of Kaye's work carries the title History of the Indian Mutiny of 1857-58.)  srs 10:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL - Statements like " government official, has related a circumstance that is strange, if true" are your sources? Am reverting those. And how is the whole state of Mysore "a few districts" ??? Jvalant 12:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am disputing if the killings even occurred. - Oh dear, I feared as much. For my own part, I am very sympathetic to the Indian side in the whole colonial episode. I accept fully and with sadness that the British visited terrible atrocities on Indian civilians before and after Cawnpore. I understand you are rightly proud of your nation's history and of her achievements. It is mark of your humanity that you cannot bring yourself to believe that certain of your countrymen, in the midst of a bloody war, could massacre unarmed civilians. However, the testimony and physical evidence are as convincing in this case as anyone could expect, sad though that might be.
 * My motivation for removing the various "alleged" adjectives was to improve the readability of the article, not to disparage the honour of the Indian side. To put it another way, if we are going to consider Cawnpore massacre as "alleged" then we have to apply that label to every other incident in the war. Then it would look like perhaps the whole thing never happened at all!
 * War is a terrible thing and in it, atrocities are common. It is our duty to remember them as accurately as possible in order that future generations might be constantly aware of the horrors they risk when they flirt with violence. It does no-one a service to air-brush distasteful events from history.--Oscar Bravo 13:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sympathy but I don't think anyone is looking for any. Since first person accounts are exclusively British and not a single Indian first person account has been made available and given the British affinity to indulge in massacres through excuses in the 19th and early twentieth century - e.g. The Black Hole of Calcutta, the "alleged" provides a neutral view without air brushing anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvalant (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The nationality of a witness, in itself, is no guide as to the veracity of his account. The testimony has to be examined by comparing it to other data such as physical evidence and cross-checking with other accounts. In the case of the Cawnpore massacre, there are numerous accounts by many witnesses of different rank and station that all tell the same story. Are you seriously alleging a massive conspiracy? If you are going to systematically disregard every account of the Indian Mutiny that was written by a European then you will cut yourself off from a huge volume of data.
 * Getting back to all the "allegedly"s that you peppered the article with (discuss the article, not the subject :-) If you want to make your point, would not the article read better if you removed all the alleged/allegedly from every verb and noun and put in a leading "disclaimer" along the lines of; "British accounts relate that..."?
 * To see how silly all the "allegedly"s are, have a read at the section on the British response. Now imagine someone who could not believe the Noble Brits could do such things went through and prefixed every verb with "allegedly". How readable would that be?

--Oscar Bravo 08:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * While adding testimony from the Indian side would improve the article, the word ‘allegedly’ should only be used when there is some actual evidence of doubt not just because it supports one person’s viewpoint. The nearest I have found so far to an Indian report of events is Saul David ((2003) The Indian Mutiny p216) who quotes an ‘Indian witness’ who testified about the planning of the massacres.

--Rsloch 11:58, 28 September 2007 (BST)

Are there any Indian sources that state that the massacre did not occour? Is there in fact any source to back the counter claim up? Slatersteven 12:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]

Why would there be a source for a non-event? Is there a source which states that Hitler does not live in my backyard? Surely, if there is no source - he must be living there. DemolitionMan 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah. User:Jvalant back with a new username User:DemolitionMan I see, thanks to WP:CHU. Well, welcome back. Oh, by the way, please do get an autograph (or maybe a notarized affidavit) from Herr Hitler the next time you see him in your backyard. That way you can edit Adolf Hitler and add the fact that he lives in your backyard.  You don't even need to allege it.  srs 03:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Next time you come around to do your janitorial chores, you can get one yourself. DemolitionMan 08:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --Bobby Awasthi 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ideally, I should have gone to the Admins notice board following your footprints because in response to your previous allegations I had clearly mentioned that your reporting was based on personal prejudices and not on edits of the reported contributors and my statement would be further substantiated by your comments above making it fit to reopen the case from the other side. But unlike your destructive stance, here I am trying to achieve the impossible by informing you further on Wikipedia policies without hoping for any miracle whatsoever. --Bobby Awasthi 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And if you can produce a reliable source to say that he did, you would be within Wikipedia's policies to plant that on his article, without even using the word "alleged." Someguy1221 20:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I could have made a sock-puppet allegation here, but however much I feel it is, I am not going to waste my time trying to support it by facts. --Bobby Awasthi 08:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have, or need, any sockpuppets. Try as you might you wont find facts to support that allegation.  I might, equally without checking, ask you if you are a fresh incarnation of the late and unlamented (as in indefinitely banned) User:Hkelkar, a gentleman with a formidable reputation for right wing PoV pushing and wikilawyering who used to edit this page, I think, and also the one on Tipu Sultan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hserus (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand that you are even trying to push your POV on my conduct by making a comparison with a banned editor by indicating on me to be a sock puppet for someone banned an year after I started, someone whose IPP is at least 2000 kms far from mine. Still, it is some reputation, unlike fly-by-delete / fly-by-revert contributors whose conduct is unfortunately too destructive. Unfortunately you dont even research your subject any deeper than your favourite Amar Chitra Katha comics. You only looked at the User page not the User_Talk:Hkelkar page. I am definitely not making a mistake in inferring that despite all wrongs, the guy has more feathers in his cap than your level of ACK-POV pushing. By the way, we are not required to go to any Arbcom when it is a content dispute related to an editor's conduct. Question 1. Whether we CORRECTED based on consensus after following wikipedia policy of leaving a message on talk page and discussing or we simply DELETED what we THOUGHT was incorrect? Question 2. DID WE EVEN GOING BACK TO THE TALK WHICH HAPPENED ALREADY ON THOSE VERY WORDS which were deleted? Since the answer to both is NO, I will not fall into the category of WP:3RR violators even if I revert another 10 times what I would like to call your EGOIST PUSH. While reverting I clearly indicated that I am ready to go for a removal of these words PROVIDED THE DEBATE which was over six months back, is reopened, in light of new evidence or facts. But alas YOUR EGO came in between. So I am forced to undo your EGO, not the edit. --Bobby Awasthi 15:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that this has degenerated into a rather nasty hissing fit. As to reliabel sources, again I ask define what you meanSlatersteven 08:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Current situation
I wonder if this can be added

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7014281.stm

Jvalant 07:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

In what context? Slatersteven 12:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]


 * About how strongly people in India still feel about the First War of Indian Independence. DemolitionMan 22:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article already lists the fact that mkany (posibly most) Indians feel strongly about the Mutiny. Which does then beg the qwuestion that as it provokes such strong reaction in India then how unbiased are contempory Indian sourcees?Slatersteven 10:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)]]


 * As unbiased as contempary British sources. If the grandchildren of the Nazis went to Auschwitz or any other concentration camp to "commemerate" the Holocaust, the reaction from the Poles wouldn't have been any different. CaptainNemo420 05:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't compare the Indian mutiny to the nazis, its rather childish and a insult to those who died because of them. How is that BBC article biased? It gives no oppinion, it simply states the facts. A man wants to visit the grave of his dead ancestor, a group of Indians protesting ruin what was meant to be a joint ceremony.--Josquius 21:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How is that different from the grandson of a Nazi wanting to visit the grave of his grandfather in Poland? Both Poland and India were illegally and unethically occupied by foreign nations. And there is nothing wrong in comparing the British Empire to the Third Reich - if you read Mein Kampf, you will realize that Hitler wanted to follow the British Empire blueprint for his Third Reich. DemolitionMan 12:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

And had to leave because of threats to their safty (well it could not be promised that they would not be harmed I assume there was a reason why local authorities suspected they might be harmed). Slatersteven 11:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Has the article been removed
I cant seem to access the article, has it been removed? Slatersteven 13:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)]]


 * Its been moved.  srs 14:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)




 * 1) (cur) (last) 18:39, 28 September 2007 Utcursch (Talk | contribs) (69,246 bytes) (restore) (undo)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 18:37, 28 September 2007 Utcursch (Talk | contribs) m (moved War of Independence of 1857 to Indian Rebellion of 1857: merge history) (undo)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 18:35, 28 September 2007 Utcursch (Talk | contribs) m (moved Indian Mutiny to Indian Rebellion of 1857: merge history) (undo)

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

War of independance?
Is there a reference for it always being called this in India? Indians I know refer to it as the sepoy rebellion generally- a far more neutral term and more fitting with the standard Indian view of British rule (pretty honest and balanced without too much nationalism tacked on)--Josquius 15:52, 28 Septembe

No. In India it is generally termed the First War of Indian Independence. Jvalant 19:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In Indian high school textbooks you mean, which get edited and re-edited depending on the POV of whether the Congress is in power - in which case more left wing JNU historians get to have a say, or whether the BJP is in power - when right wing historians have something to say. Nowhere else. Citing a newspaper SOLELY to show popular usage - this is a story in the Times of India about an old tortoise's death.. "Tortoise that saw Sepoy Mutiny" dies.  http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1461641.cms .. various other news sources / articles, and colloquial usage in several languages calls it sepoy mutiny, not war of independence.  So, I am afraid your contention isn't valid if you simply cite POV ideas of political correctness srs 02:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And how many newspapers term it as War of Independence? Are you saying - using the "War of Independence" is solely done by the alleged "right-wingers"? That surely explains the statement mentioned by Somnath Chatterjee in this very article - doesn't it? What you been smoking? I want that shit. Jvalant 08:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citing a newspaper SOLELY to show popular usage; I could CORRECT your myopia with only one sentence, but I would reserve it for the end:
 * [] - Sify.Com ONE WEBSITE (NOT NEWSPAPER)called it FIRST WAR OF INDEPENDENCE - RIGHT WING?
 * This article puts "war of independence" in quotes (like that) and then proceeds to use the words mutiny throughout. Jooler 00:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And now my final one, Times of India cited by you, also used the words much more times than it used Indian Mutiny: [] / [] / [] Unfortunately, [User:Hserus|srs] has time to argue here, but he would still not realise that I had to waste my time to copy paste EXISTING CITATIONS/REFERENCES from the article page to stop his own POV-pushing. User:Bobby Awasthi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [] - Another Website (Did I say Newspaper?) - Must be right wing again!
 * Rizvi, Syed Khurshid Mustafa: 1857 - History of the Indian Struggle for Freedom, Raza Library, Rampur, 2000 [in Urdu]. - Definitely must be a Saffron clad BJP right winger - Oh, its a Book, not newspaper?
 * [] - Damn now an English professor says so - The 1857 Indian Mutiny (also known as the Sepoy Rebellion, the Great Mutiny, and the Revolt of 1857) -George P.Landow, Professor of English and Art History, Brown University on Victorian Web (Site not newspaper?)
 * [] - NOW WHAT? British Army Museum called it something different from Indian Mutiny? Where do I go and hide now from my right wing POV?
 * A few searches of the Times of India site seems to suggest that the words "war of independence" is used with roughly equal measure with "Sepoy mutiny" and "Indian mutiny", but such contextless searches prove nothing. Jooler 00:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my ALLEGED POV possibly without realizing. The entire argument I presented was to stop a POV pusher from trying to prove a point without any context/reference/citation/verifiable source without even having read the same stuff available in the original article's current revision. For arguments in support of my statements I normally cite specific subject dedicated pages off web or books or newspapers or existing reference/citations. Regards --Bobby Awasthi 08:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
How many freaking times have we discussed this? The current box presents a completely NPOV - if "War of Independence" is considered one of the legit names, then surely "freedom fighters" is as well. Look at this link

http://www.indianpost.com/viewstamp.php/Alpha/M/MANGAL%20PANDEY

If the British Govt or its citizens had or have a problem with the likes of Mangal Pandey being called "freedom fighters" - how come they don't make it known to the Indian Govt?

It's not as if I am putting in the British combatants as terrorists or invaders. However, if push comes to shove, I am willing to do that as well.

DemolitionMan 05:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead. Do it. It will simply get reverted and the article tagged NPOV. What's new? Take it to the arbcomm, be my guest srs 06:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not yet. I don't go bitching at the slightest provocation although I am quickly reaching my threshold point of exasperation. DemolitionMan 14:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arbcomm has been bought over? I am not as sure as the one inviting. Jvalant, I would strongly recommend you dont reach the threshold. There are reasons: This deleter (I wouldnt call him editor/contributor for obvious reasons) may have realized recently that he has already added on to his long list of misconduct and violations of quite a few policies of Wikipedia (I wouldnt list them until he goes to some admin or arbcomm on his own, for obvious reasons). Now an easy way out for him is to instigate you and change the whole scene. He has not YET bothered to go and read the hundreds of words wasted by both sides in reaching the current infobox and has behaved in a typical TENDENTIOUS and DISRUPTIVE EDITOR style but to pick from the article of which he is the self-acclaimed owner,""Our creed does not permit us to kill a bound prisoner", one of the matchlockmen explained, "though we can slay our enemy in battle." A serious contributor would prefer to be a matchlockman who was quoted by a British prisoner even after he lost, than to be a Gulab Singh whose only effort to earn his throne was to ditch his creed. --Bobby Awasthi 16:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom fighters
The infobox really shouldn't say freedom fighters. Disregarding the fact that that's utterly innaccurate- its just not NPOV. They were rebels. That is the proper neutral term. Freedom fighters is too positive on them just like traitors is too negative on them.--Josquius 12:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I UTTERLY agree with you that the infobox shouldnt say freedom fighters. Disregarding the fact that YOU and I (and one more for sure) FEEL that it is UTTERLY ACCURATE (oops! I mean inaccurate) and its JUST NOT POV (Oops! I mean npov). They were rebels, you say and I say and thats enough, eh! That is a proper neutral term, I support you, because I have checked it on my self-invented NPOV meter. Freedom fighters is too positive on them, just like traitors is too negative (though how much I wish they are named that way); agreed again.
 * But then, I went to Archive 2 and wasted my time reading the lengthy debates that happened on the subject, and somehow I felt that not everyone participating there would have been an idiot that after wasting so much time they left things as such. So, I would ask you also to take some trouble before you present your POV about the definition of NPOV. --Bobby Awasthi 13:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The infobox shouldn't really say "British Army". Disregarding the fact that that's utterly inaccurate - it's just not NPOV. They were terrorists. That is the proper neutral term. Army is too positive on them just like scum-of-the-earth is too negative on them.

See Josquis, the shoe can fit the other foot too. How did you come to the conclusion that it is "utterly inaccurate"? The term "rebel" just smack of right wing imperialism by a nation which can't get used to the idea of being nothing more than a has been and an American colony. --DemolitionMan 21:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't be a dick. The rebel Indians were not freedom fighters. There is no such thing as a freedom fighter in NPOV. The British Army is a totally accurate term, it says nothing about what the British army was doing or how justified they were (or weren't, its irrelevant). If the Indians had called themselves 'The Indian Freedom Fighters' then yeah- it would be a OK descriptor. None of them that I can recall used such a name however. Rebel is a completely neutral term, to dispute it is to dispute the actual situation of the time and claim that the EIC wasn't really de facto overlord of India. The term freedom fighter just stinks of the kind of rabid hindu nationalism that needs stamping out of many India articles.

Bobby too, please be civil. You are acting quite out of line there and making some pretty stupid assumptions. I'm well aware its been discussed in the past. Just because a mistake was discussed in the past and not fixed however does not mean it should be ignored and allowed to exist forever.--Josquius 09:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is entirely your absurd opinion. Most Indians regard them as freedom fighters and that is what matters. It is a neutral term. DemolitionMan 08:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The term British army is the universaly accepted term for the force in question, the Term freedom fighter is not, not even in India. Slatersteven 08:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)]]

I shall repeat this once again: Do you have any example of the British Govt. objecting to these people as freedom fighters as the Indian Govt. has called them and issued stamps in their honor? If you have such instances - then of course there is room for debate on whether "freedom fighters" is a legit term or not. If not, then stop pushing your imperialist agenda on Wikipedia. DemolitionMan 15:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the only one with a imperialist agenda here. See here.--Josquius 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Freedom Fighter should be avoided. That's all it says. It is not possible to avoid it here for lack of a better word. However, I am willing to go with Indian Patriots as a compromise. Do you have any sources which state that the British govt has objected to these freedom fighters being labeled as such by the Govt. of India or even condemning such actions? If there is, I shall withdraw "freedom fighters". If not, stop pushing you imperialist agenda here. It is not my fault that your country has been reduced to irrelevance in today's fault and serves as nothing but America's 51st state. Get over it and move on. DemolitionMan 13:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Patriots is not a compromise at all, that's just as much POV as freedom fighter. Rebel is the compromise term- its between the modern, rabid hindu nationalist types 'freedom fighter' and the contemporary British 'traitor'. Its the standard neutral term for someone who decides to go against the established authority. Have you never seen Star Wars? Rebel is really not a bad word.Hell, in the US with regards to the war of independance they are quite proud of the whole rebel label. Why would it matter if the British government had objected to someone deciding they were freedom fighters? Why would they even have done that?  Assuming the official Indian word was that these people were freedom fighters and that's that (which it isn't) it still doesn't make it a fact. Should the articles on Iraq read that it is now a peaceful, stable, democracy just because the US government likes to say so? YOU are the ones with the imperialist agenda here. I really can't stand this kind of ignorance which believes that the British lost the empire against all efforts to keep it and still mope about it. If you did a little bit of research you would find the British education system is amongst the most anti-British empire in the world- according to my sources in England THE most. What makes you jump to the assumption that I'm British anyway? Because that is fairly inaccurate...--Josquius 14:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Americans use the words "Patriot" as often as they use the word "Rebel". And do you have any proof whatsoever to back your sensationalist claims? The first being the incident know as a "mutiny" in "the rest of the world". Do you have verifiable source from East Timor, Burkina Faso or Vanautu to back this claim? The term "Patriot" and/or Freedom Fighter stays. Are you aware of the 3 RR rule? You have been warned. You've changed it quite a few times. You have been warned. CaptainNemo420 08:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Warned? LOL. Its you guys who need warning. I'm just trying to keep a neutral POV here. Proof? What proof is needed? I am not claiming anything let along anything sensational. And I don't believe I've ever violated the 3RR (though certain people here may well have via use of alternate accounts and not logging in). The rebellions' name elsewhere in the world is irrelevant to this freedom fighter idiocy. It was a hole in the article that needed fixing- as it stood before the rebellion only had a name in India and Britain though of course it is known outside of these countries. I just said elsewhere, not over the entire world. I very much doubt the majority of the people in Burkina Faso are aware there ever was a Indian rebellion. If you want you can make a section about what its called in different countries but that seems like overkill to me.--Josquius 11:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

And what does elsewhere entail? Traditionally??? LOL - According to which tradition? The only idiocy displayed is the one you are displaying by trying to push your British POV over and over again. CaptainNemo420 11:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Jesus. Are you for real jvalant? I'm going to stop trying to fix up the article now until something is done about you and this freedom fighter stuff is sorted as you seem to determined to try and drag any other edit in with that simple case of restoring NPOV. And FYI my POV when I do decide to push it (not here) is a IRISH one.--Josquius 12:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I am logged in all right janitor. DemolitionMan 13:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EXTREMIST precludes Freedom fighters as used
WP policy states that:
 * the words "Extremist", "Terrorist" and "Freedom fighter" should be avoided unless there is a verifiable citation indicating who is calling a person or group by one of those names in the standard Wikipedia format of "X says Y"

Since an infobox by definition doesn't allow for X says Y format, the term should not be used here. The term can be incorporated into the text if supported by a reliable source and phrased appropriately. I have protected the page for now to give parties a chance to cool down. Ronnotel 12:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. The word "Patriot" carries no such baggage and hence as I offered earlier, can be used as a compromise. DemolitionMan 14:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is not my view vs. yours, no compromise is possible. This is a case of restoring NPOV. The version I have been trying to keep from the start is the compromise one.Go look at the articles on the Irish war of independance or the American Revolutionary War. Events in which far more of a case could be made to call the rebels freedom fighters yet it isn't done. NPOV prevails and only the facts are given.--Josquius 21:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope. It is a case of the NPOV vs your personal POV. In the Bangladesh War of Independence Mukti Bahini, directly meaning "Freedom Fighters" are listed as combatants, in the Greek War of Independence Greek revolutionaries are listed as combatants, in the Ecuadorian War of Independence the combatants are listed as Patriots, Venezuelan War of Independence lists the combatants as Patriots, Turkish War of Independence lists them as revolutionaries. Stop pushing an imperialist agenda of a has-been nation on Wikipedia. DemolitionMan 03:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is quite a few examples. Does User:Josquius have something to say about it? Oh - and what's with the sockpuppet complaint? More than 1 person can't disagree with you? CaptainNemo420 05:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

'A revolutionary is a rebel who wins'. There would be nothing wrong with the revolutionary term except the rebels sort of didn't win. Quite a bit didn't win actually. Hell they weren't even trying to win in the "imperialist pov way you are trying to push." And another thing. You seem obsessed with making me out to be some imaginary British bogey man which only exists in your own mind. Actually that's a good idea. If you'd like I could argue in favour of that sort of thing. We could have a few days of slinging racist insults back and forth and then agree to a compromise which (shock,horror) is NPOV...--Josquius 07:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL. And how conveniently you skipped the term "patriots" extensively used. And where did you pull the stupid definition of "revolutionary" from? Here is the definition

1.     of, pertaining to, characterized by, or of the nature of a revolution, or a sudden, complete, or marked change: a revolutionary junta. 2.	radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery.

Hence, we can remove the term "freedom fighters" and put in "Indian patriots" and "Indian revolutionaries". CaptainNemo420 09:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about something like Anti-British rebels, they were rebels and tehy were anti-British (well John company rule). Or just Indian rebles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a convention which prohibits the use of "Patriots" or "Revolutionaries"? We can name the British Army as "Anti-Indian British Forces" if you so desire. I have no issues with that. I do have an issue with Freedom Fighters / Revolutionaries / Patriots being branded with an imperialist term. CaptainNemo420 11:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

So its fortunate then that no one wants to use a imperialist term. And the British side during the war was not by any means anti-Indian (hell, it was mostly Indian). There is a convention which prohibits calling the rebels, patriots or revolutionaries. Its the same convention which prohibits calling cows, birds.--Josquius 11:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's downright laughable - "the British side during the war was not by any means anti-Indian" - of course, they were carrying the white man's burden as kipling so eloquently put it and if carrying that burden meant killing a few million - it was all in the altruistic interest of India! Is there any more compelling proof required to prove that this vandal Josquius is pushing his right-wing British agenda and generally creating a ruckus? DemolitionMan 14:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. How predictable.Not anti-Indian != pro-Indian. But anyway, your rants just prove my point. All you want here is a fight with the big evil baby-killing British bogey man. You don't care about improving the encyclopedia, you just want to fight for freedom and truth and justice and all that sort of thing against those horrible Englishmen. You want to prove yourself to be a man by bravely shouting at them from across a computer screen and magically stopping their nefarious plans. For as we all know us British people were really stupid and lost the empire (all that stiff about economics is lies and vandalism!) but are desperate to get it back....at all costs! (insert evil yet slightly effette laughter here)--Josquius 15:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Get it back? How do they intend to do that? By begging for alms? That's another laughable post. I didn't realize you were on wikipedia to provide comic relief. Anyways - I couldn't care less about the British future - I don't bet on dead horses. And I have no opinion on the British - to each his own. My only concern is pushing an imperialist agenda - the one you have about the UK - to make yourself feel better. If you feel so down - see a shrink. DemolitionMan 18:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Retaliation
 A forthcoming (as of August 2007) book by Amaresh Misra estimates that the number of people murdered by the British in retaliation for the rebellion was 10 million. His calculations are based on triangulation of several different sets of records. If Misra's estimate is proved correct, this was the greatest genocide in history, worse than the Holocaust or Stalin's purges. Other historians have questioned these figures suggesting that the total includes refugees (as the figures are based on regional depopulation figures) and famine (a not uncommon occurrence in India at the time).(Guardian August 24, 2007 India's secret history: a holocaust)

Please provide a source that claims these mass killings was a genocide. Some might argue that holocaust and genocide are interchangeable and that the Guardian use the word holocaust. But there are several other points on this particular entry:


 * To be a genocide there has to be intent to commit genocide, and the proportion killed must meet the "in part" requirement.


 * WP:Undue weight: One historian publishing a book on such a controversial issue, does not provide evidence that a consensus is emerging among historians to revise the historical consensus.


 * Also the sentence "If Misra's estimate... is unsourced and is WP:OR until sourced.

G.I Bob 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you write to Guardian to clarify what they actually meant? DemolitionMan 14:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

That's "The Guardian", a fairly popular centre-left heavyweight newspaper, known for it's "interesting" spelling. The definite article is popular in English ;-)

Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if the claims in the book were actually entirely true (and there does seem to be some significant doubt about this), the claim that it is the worst genocide in history is clearly just POV by a User, as the reference does not say that. Additionally, Hitler's Germany and Stalins Russia achieved a higher death toll, so it is factually wrong as well as being POV. 6 million in the Holocaust was just the Jews. 1.5 million non-Jews dies in Auschwitz. Then add all the other non-Jews in the other camps. Then add all the mass executions in villages and towns (particularly in the East), then add all the "anti-partisan" squads, etc. etc. Wikipedia gives the figure of 9 to 11 million in the text, but also notes sources giving an estimate of the figure as 17 million, and 26 million. With Stalin, the biggie is usually seen as the forced colectivization of the Ukraine. Far more than 10 million died as a result of that. For the '32-33 famine, the lowest figure is 4.8 million, and the highest very reputable figure is 8 million. on top of that there were the non-famine death - executions, forced marches, gulags. Stalin himself told Churchill the number was 10 million, and there would be little to be gained in Stalin overestimating!! Encarta http://uk.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579484/Collectivization.html quotes Conquest with a figure of 14.5 million. I know some people get very Patriotic about some issues, but let's try to be objective, and not just say our opponents "were the worst in History", as History has seen some very bad things indeed. Mao killed quite a lot of people too. I have seen the figure of 70 million. I guess the British were just amateurs when it came to being the worst in History Mariya Oktyabrskaya 21:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right - the statement is loaded - it should be taken off - it certainly can't be called the "worst genocide" or some such. DemolitionMan 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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

You walked into the middle of a editwar certain users were raging against this article. It was probally removed by the Indian nationalists. I'd agree it probally shouldn't say that though, standard procedure on wikipedia with wars seems to be for outcomes to say 'treaty of xxxx' 'annexation of yyyy by zzzzz', not simply 'zzzzz victory'--Josquius 21:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't exactly a British victory since the EEIC was removed and the Queen took over. 59.93.96.161 11:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)#

Who was the British ruler, and whose government then took over ruling the area. Certainly John company lost, as did the Rebels, that either mean that no one won or that the British did (unless there was another force in place unmentioned within the article). Slatersteven 19:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Back
Now that the protection is removed. We are back to square one. I wonder is Josquius is the same as NJW? How do I check that? He seems as adamant to promote the British POV over the neutral one at all costs.

DemolitionMan 19:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what a NJW is. Tell me: how are you promoting NPOV? I am the NPOV one here, the entire reason I started editing this article was to help make it more NPOV. Any objective person looking in here can see you are pushing your nationalist POV.--Josquius 20:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NJW was/is another user adamant to push the British POV. LOL - You are promoting NPOV by refusing to incorporate the views of all sides? That's a joke.

However, he was handled by Bobby and Jvalant - funny I have had to throw my hat in the ring after such a long time.

CaptainNemo420 05:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If the article was to incorporate the views of all sides in the way you desire then the infobox would read 'Indian traitor freedom fighter Mughal loyalist scumbag patriots'....which is really quite a mess.- No, its better if we stick to the facts in the infobox. You are not pushing a NPOV at all, you are pushing a INDIAN POV, something just as bad as a traditional British one/-Josquius 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"Scumbag Patriots" ???? "Indian traitors"??? Who pray thinks that? Lets see some sources for these other ridiculous claims of yours. It would be pushing the Indian POV, if I called the Brits "British terrorists" and "imperialist bloodsuckers" - but I am not doing that. CaptainNemo420 10:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

According to you the British think that. I would like to see some sources from you which say the Indians were freedom fighters- that is of course REAL sources, of the ilk of the rebels themselves saying 'we are freedom fighters, we will overthrow the EIC and set up a Indian Republic!' A few people in modern India saying something does not make it fact--Josquius 10:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure - You should have read the article before you started your nonsense.

"The sepoys did not seek to revive small kingdoms in their regions, instead they repeatedly proclaimed a "country-wide rule" of the Moghuls and vowed to drive out the British from "India", as they knew it then. (The sepoys ignored local princes and proclaimed in cities they took over: Khalq Khuda Ki, Mulk Badshah Ka, Hukm Subahdar Sipahi Bahadur Ka - i.e. the world belongs to God, the country to the Emperor and executive powers to the Sepoy Commandant in the city). The objective of driving out "foreigners" from not only one's own area but from their conception of the entirety of "India", signifies a nationalist sentiment"


 * This was a case of British rule or Mughal rule, not at all indicitive of a freedom fighter never mind proof. --Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Or this interesting bit

After the Queen’s Proclamation, the English wanted to win her over by offers of royal clemency and even of a pension. But Begum Hazrat Mahal replied with a counter-proclamation under the seal of her young son and heir to the Oudh crown, Birjis Qadar, warning the people of Oudh not to be misled by false promises. The Begum’s Proclamation, as it is called, stated: “At this time certain weak-minded, foolish people, have spread a report that the English have forgiven the faults and crimes of the people of Hindoostan. This appears very astonishing, for it is the unvarying custom of the English never to forgive a fault, be it great or small, so much so that if a small offence be committed through ignorance or negligence, they never forgive it….. therefore we, the ever-abiding government, parents of the people of Oude, with great consideration, put forth the present proclamation, in order that the real object of the chief points may be exposed, and our subjects placed on their guard.”

As you see, she speaks for all of Hindoostan (India) and not just for Oudh.


 * I'm not so sure there, she clearly says the people of Oude. I don't care though so assuming you are right: how on Earth does this make this woman a freedom fighter? It doesn't even hint as such never mind being definate proof of it.--Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"“In the proclamation it is written, that the Christian religion is true, but that no other creed will suffer oppression, and that the laws will be observed towards all. What has the administration of justice to do with the truth or falsehood of religion? That religion is true which acknowledges one God, and knows no other. Where there are three gods in a religion, neither Mussulman nor Hindoo- nay, not even Jews, Sun-worshippers, or Fire-worshippers can believe it true. To eat pigs and drink- to bite greased cartridges, and to mix pig’s fat with flour and sweetmeats — to destroy Hindoo and Mussalman temples on pretence of making roads to build churches — to send clergymen into streets and alleys to preach the Christian religion — to institute English schools, and to pay a monthly stipend for learning the English sciences, while the places of worship of Hindoos and Mussalmans are to this day entirely neglected; with all this, how can the people believe that religion will not be interfered with? The rebellion began with religion, and, for it, millions of men have been killed. Let not our subjects be deceived; thousands were deprived of their religion in the North-West, and thousands were hanged rather than abandoned their religion.”"


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

If you have even an iota of rationality in you - you shall cease your parasitic sniveling now. CaptainNemo420 11:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And please be civil. It will really do nothing for your case to see all these insults (including quite a few pretty racist ones) about the place.--Josquius 11:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Atleast stick to one story. You use words like "Scumbag Patriots" and "Indian traitors" and then wrongly claim that I am the one using them. You ask for proof that the freedom fighters had an idea of fighting for a nation - that too is provided. And which of my insults have been racist? Are you gonna conjure up some more nonsense? CaptainNemo420 11:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh - and one more revert and you would have breached the 3 RR once more. You have been warned. CaptainNemo420 11:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The same applies to that account also. I don't know what the problem is here... I guess English isn't your native language? Anyone can see I was not seriously prosing putting that long mash up of extreme oppinions in the article. Racism...Well all the anti-British stuff is pretty rascist to begin with. Not going to list all that. Then there is: "LOL - If it is not white man and his trusted water-bearer Gunga-Din. And I know about Ireland - I just don't believe you are Irish. And if you are, you need to hit the bar more often. DemolitionMan 18:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)" (from my user talk) You have provided nothing close to proof of the rebels being freedom fighters, they didn't even call themselves anything like that never mind actually being such!  Let me start again, this is the way things are: 1: 19th century British establishment oppinion: The Indians were mutineers, traitors, etc.... 2: 21st century Hindu nationalist oppinion: The Indians were freedom fighters, heroes, etc... So the NPOV is what comes in the middle of these two. The NPOV is leaving out all this and just sticking to the facts. The facts being- some Indians rebelled against Company Rule. So its rebels.--Josquius 11:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Insurgents', perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.40 (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talking to Nemo by quoting points put forth by me? You truly need your brain checked. Gaelic is your native language, isn't it? You simply don't get English prose. Hindu nationalist opinion? LOL - you do love to shoot yourself, don't you? Read the quotes by Speaker of the Lok Sabha - a life-long Communist or a bunch of other people from all spectra of society. And learn to spell "opinion". How old are you? 12?

The statements put forth above show that they were fighting for the Mughal Emperor of India. They were trying to throw out a foreign power. Even at 12, you should be able to grasp that these were patriots, revolutionaries or freedom fighters and not merely "rebels". DemolitionMan 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Even when I point out you are breaking wikiquette you continue to do it...jeez. I'm not joking here, this is a true warning. So they weren't merely rebels? So what about all other people who die in rebellions then? Are all other rebels doing it just for fun?--Josquius 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course they weren't merely rebels. It has been stated quite clearly that there is an ambiguity on whether this was merely a rebellion or a true war of independence. The arguments of both sides have been put forth. So the infobox should reflect that - how difficult is this to comprehend? NPOV doesn't mean catering to merely one of these - which according to you is nothing but a rebellion. You fail to acknowledge that even War of Independence is as legitimate as Rebellion or Mutiny. DemolitionMan 11:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If the info box should reflect the fact that there is debate about the nature of the Munity then should it not read that in a way that reflects that. So giviing one interritation of the nature/motivation of the muniteers does not do that. Where for example in the section on the Britsh does it say Indian (or Punjabi) loyalitst? Slatersteven 11:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)]]

Do you have a reference for the term "Indian loyalists"? If so, I don't have an issue. DemolitionMan 12:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that there were no indians who remained loyal to the Raj? Indians who were not Sepoy or Prince. If the vast bulk of Indias popyulation had not remained loyal (and in the case of the supply train and workers in the arsenals) the Britsh could not have won. If you are drawing a distiction between native rulers and sepoys and the civil poulation at large when describing the native forces deployed against the British then surley you should draw the same lines with regards to the forces that remianed loyal. Slatersteven 17:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)]]

I am asking if there is a reference where the term "Indian loyalists" is used like there is for the term "freedom fighters". Whether they were loyal to the British cause or disloyal to the Indian one is a moot point and depends on which perspective you are looking from. DemolitionMan 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that as there was a clear distinction being made between mutinous sepoys, native rulers and Indian civilians (with a fourth force of Patriots/freedom fighter (who it would seem were not in the other three categories) I was suggesting that a distinction should also be placed referring (by whatever name you wish) to those Indians who remained loyal to the Raj. By the way why does the info box seem (this could be a matter of perspective) seem to gloss over the Indian support for the Raj. Why for example does it not state the number of native rulers who remained loyal, as it does give the number who rebelled? Should it not also state that there were loyal sepoys as well as mutinous ones? Why they remained loyal is not the issue, the fact they most of India did remain loyal (or at least acquiescent) this is not clear from the info box, and I believe (as I have stated above) to in fact be the opposite. Slatersteven 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)]]

True, Indian loyalists should probally be added to the British side. Making it clearer those that rebelled were the exceptions. --Josquius 19:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of states which were neutral. These were independent states not allied to either side. Just as Switzerland can't be termed as an Axis or Allied nation in WW-2, no state which did not participate on either side of the Rebellion can by default become an ally of the East India Company if it did not support the Rebelling States. "Loyalists" is a loaded term. "Indian loyalists" can be applied to both sides depending on how you look toward it. A better term would be "faithful" as they were not the ones rebelling. Are we saying the number of combatants were the following -

1. British East India Company 2. British Army 3. Indian Sepoys faithful to the British 4. Indian states allied to the British

vs.

1. Rebelling Sepoys 2. Indian states against the British 3. Civilian Indian Patriots

If we use these terms, it presents a more balanced perspective. Whether the people who rebelled can be considered mutineers or freedom fighters is addressed in the article and hence need not be mentioned. The other stakeholder in the region - "Neutral States" need not be mentioned.

202.177.230.212 16:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

more or less but yo the British should also be added 4. Indian civilians who remained loyal to the Raj. Also as it is still debateable that this was the first war of independanace a term other then Patriot should be used. Slatersteven 12:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Faithfull...hmm....a bit of a odd choice of words there DM (I guess thats who it is anyway). How is loyal loaded? Being loyal doesn't say anything about how good or bad the cause they were loyal to was. And the number 3 on the Indian side is right out. There were no patriots,if you believe there were then by all means find sources that say such and add it to the article in a clear sense of 'XXXX believes that the rebels were patriots'. Civilians...Not as big a deal as patriots but it doesn't really need mentioning. Civilians are in all wars and they were killed by both sides during this rebellion. --Josquius 14:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)