Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia India pages is totally compromised by the presence of jingoist writers[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know about the title of this section, but the above editors have a point. India was not a single unit, then or now (included Pakistan then at best). The Rebellion is known universally in the English-speaking world outside of India, as the "Sepoy Mutiny." Student7 (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
@Student7: You may want to take a look at the Nomenclature and Historiography sections of the article for a discussion of the topic. Abecedare (talk) 21:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

Place by Gurjars[edit]

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

This now appears to be WP:SOAPBOX for tribes. Student7 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Linking in subtitle[edit]

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

Scarequotes and tendentious details about rifling[edit]

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

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

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

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

historians who are quoted have to be named in text says Wiki rule[edit]

One historian here feels that names of historians should not be mentioned, only their ideas. That violates Wiki rules when a quotation is involved. See WP:PLAGIARISM which states: In addition to an inline citation, in-text attribution is usually required when quoting or closely paraphrasing source material (for example: "John Smith wrote that the building looked spectacular," or "According to Smith (2012) ..."). The Manual of Style requires in-text attribution when quoting a full sentence or more. Naming the author in the text allows the reader to see that it relies heavily on someone else's ideas, without having to search in the footnote. Rjensen (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

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

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have removed the distorted account of Bayly's work on the rebellion. The term swadeshi did not exist until the early 1900s. Bayly, in fact, says something different in that article:

Nevertheless, in 1857 most Irishmen still seem to have identified with British rule in India because of the threat the Rebellion posed to overseas European communities. This was because the Irish were not only the victims of the imperial state, but also some its greatest beneficiaries, a position which hardly changed through to the 1930s. These benefits flowed both to Protestants and to Catholics, both to North and to South, although unevenly. I will briefly describe Ireland's imperialist history as a background to the full emergence of Irish and Indian nationalism, and their mutual acknowledgement, in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

Please don't send students down the wrong path and put words in Bayly's mouth. I have removed that paragraph. Again, it is best not to edit this article on the fly by adding in helter-skelter fashion the source you manage to find at that moment. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

We have discussions here BEFORE we erase sourced material. Please do not claim ownership of this article. you're wrong about Bayly's article. he explicitly says "India and Ireland can both be seen as old agro-industrial provinces of Eurasiand ones which were quite rapidly, if only partially deindustrialised at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Their decline was exacerbated by the collapse of British and European demand for their products and the rigorous imposition of free trade: from 1801 in the Irish case and from 1834, in the Indian case. The nationalist slogans of swadeshi in India or 'home production' in Ireland were not tokens of a reinvented mythical past, but a response to very recent economic malformations." You need to read Bayly's famous The Birth of the Modern World, 1780-1914 (2003) p 154 to see how he puts India & 1857 in world historical perspective. Rjensen (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have read Bayly's later works. We are supposed to be adding adding historiography specif to the Indian rebellion. You have added a paragraph, an incidental one, in an incidental work, as emblematic of Bayly's work on the rebellion, at the top of the section. The rapidly deindustrialized sectors of India's economy were not in regions that rebelled. On top of that you are spouting Wikipedia banalaties as if I don't know them.
No, it is not a narrow article. Why should it be? The article is designed to broaden the knowledge of the readership about 1857. Baily has probably the broadest view of all, with an important article comparing the situation to the British rule in Ireland. Our jobs as Wikipedia editors is not to invent our own set of priorities, but to Follow the scholarship. Bayly represents one of the most important to of the scholars of the subject, and his priorities carry a lot of weight. Rjensen (talk) 17:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)