Jump to content

Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Belligerents

Hello, fellow editor @Slatersteven, I noticed you recently reverted one of my edits and so not intending to editwar, I opened this discussion. I think the current belligerents are not correct. United Kingdom wasn't a main contender and definitely not the primary contender. It only supported East India Company-controlled Government of India in the war by providing troops and ammunition. Also, "Company rule" and "Mughal Empire" make it sound like it was a war between two different countries while in reality both were in the same country and it was more of a rebellion against the government or a civil war even. Wouldn't it better to put "Badshah of Hindustan" and "Government of India (controlled by EIC)"? Thanks. PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you will find pressed to convince anyone that the UK was not a "main contender". Also why "Badshah of Hindustan" rather than what the article linked to says? Why are generals listed in the section about factions? Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Slatersteven, I understand but I think you'd agree that it wasn't a war between the Mughal Empire and the United Kingdom, rather a civil war rebellion within India between the Government and the rebels supporting the old Mughal Emperor. The belligerents should state the contenders and their supporters, i.e., the Government of India and the loyal princes and troops and the rebel sepoys and princes who rallied under the Badshah of Hindustan (the official title of the Mughal Emperor).PadFoot2008 (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
No I would not, and nor do RS, I have never in fact seen it called a civil war. A war of independence, a mutiny, a revolt, never a civil war. Find some RS that says it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Also there is no need to ping me, I am already here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not going to ping you now onwards. I never said it was civil war. I said it was like a civil war. Okay let's just forget civil war. It was a rebellion. A Rebellion against the Government by sepoys and princes in support of the Mughal Emperor. I've removed it from my above replies. Also, as this discussion is ot about names, we can discuss that later. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Not at first, it was a straight-up mutiny, with no wider goal. It morphed into a wider revolt once it looked like it might succeed, it is (however) questionable if the Mughals were anything more than a (afterthought) justification. Indeed more or less the same arguments can be used for them being "belligerents" as you are using for Britain, it, in fact, had more direct control and involvement. Slatersteven (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it was a mutiny at first. But the sepoys then marched to Delhi and declared the Mughal Emperor as their sovereign and forced him to sign an agreement/declaration. Following the declaration other princes rebelled as well and declared him as their sovereign. I do not see how this is similar to Britain. The Government of India was the main contender the entire time with Britain simply supporting it and sending troops to fight with it. Again, it wasn't a war between two countries, it was a rebellion. Britain did have more involvement but the Government was the main contender. PadFoot2008 (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, if you want, we could remove "Supported by:" on top of United Kingdom and the other sovereign countries that supported the Government to show their direct involvement. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it is fine as it is, your changes are not needed. Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Please try to understand. Placing United Kingdom at first is misguiding. Also Company rule in India wasn't a belligerent. It should be replaced by [[Company rule in India|Government of India]]. The Company was just a, well, a company, in Britain, controlling the Government and holding the territories in trust of the British Crown. And rebel sepoys and princes were headed by the Mughal Emperor. Rebel sepoys shouldn't be on top either. Maybe Badshah of Hindustan is not required, instead we can put [[Mughal Emperor]]. PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Editor @Slatersteven, please respond. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say, I do not find your arguments convincing until you make one that can change my mind (based upon what [wP:rs]] say) there is not more for me to add. My objections stand. Slatersteven (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
All right, I'm going to provide RS, can you at least tell me what changes are ready to accept now, even if it's a little bit, so that I know what I have to provide and what not for rs? PadFoot2008 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
All of it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2023

The infobox has a link with the text "Cashmere Gate" instead of "Kashmiri Gate" (which is also the title of the page it links to). queshav (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Question: what difference does it make? Both are common names and "Cashmere Gate" is mentioned in the lead sentence of linked article. M.Bitton (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Infobox paintings

Hello @Fowler&fowler, I understand that this is a long-standing edit but why shouldn't I add the paintings, just the paintings? See Seven Years War and War of 1812, they too have paintings in their infobox. That's sort of a convention. A large majority of articles about old military conflicts have paintings in their infobox. PadFoot2008 (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe that to the victor the spoils is an inviolate encyclopedic tradition in the illustration of battles on Wikipedia. Beyond the exaggerated dramatic big moments, the Indian rebellion of 1857 was most significantly a civil rebellion in Awadh. Where are the illustrations of a civil rebellion in which peasants took part, the peasants in the aid of whom, the British had enacted land reforms? How do you illustrate Eric Thomas Stokes's pathbreaking The Peasant Armed: The Indian Revolt of 1857 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean that is no excuse to make this article an exception and not include any paintings at all. I'm just asking for the paintings to be included. Some can be replaced by better ones later on. PadFoot2008 (talk) 07:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Also I have no doubt that this was a largely a peasant rebellion, but the article infobox doesn't do good job of showing that. It only seems to focus around the military conflict part of the incident and not the rebellion. Look at the belligerents for instance, it lists a "Mughal Empire", the mutinying sepoys in the Bengal Army, the troops and forces of dethroned queen Lakshmibai and the hereditary peshwa Nana Sahib, and few other mutinying factions of some Indian states. No mention of the peasant rebellion at all, from which the event derives it name from. To a new reader, it would just look like the troops of British India mutinied and a Mughal Empire decided to intervene and it became a full-blown war between the two. I might be exaggerating a bit but you get the point. The belligerents need some tweaking too. PadFoot2008 (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Please do not confuse matters by raising other topics. Slatersteven (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Umm.. so you support the addition of paintings? PadFoot2008 (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
No, I said do not add additional issues to confuse things, and now I am telling you not to put words in peoples mouths. If I mean X I will say X. Slatersteven (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
All right, I was just asking your opinion. PadFoot2008 (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

inappropriate title

Since edit option is off I thought I should put it here. Why is the title of the page the "Indian Rebellion of 1857" when these days the name "War of Independence 1857" is much more preferred. Calling it a rebellion makes it seem that the Indians were unjustified in starting the war and in favour of the British version of the War. The war of independence seems like a much more neutral and rightful name to me as that is what it was- A struggle for independence not merely a defiance of the British 206.84.146.6 (talk) 09:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it? "Indian Rebellion of 1857" 329,000 results on google, "War of Independence 1857" 112,000 results on google. By the way "Indian Mutiny" has 919,000 results so by at least some metrics that is the more commonly used title. By the way, more Indians fought for the Raj than British troops.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

Please add the name of Rani Avantibai of Ramgarh (present day Dindori) besides the name of Rani Laxmibai as she too played an important role in revolt of 1857.

For reliability,

Thank you. XlycanX (talk) 16:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

unsure these pass wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Atleast add her name in this article. XlycanX (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Read wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, based on our article Avantibai, it doesn't look like we have much information on her. Best to keep what we know of her contributions in that article rather than here.

First war of indian independence

first war of

indian independence

2409:40F2:38:6C3B:75B7:3C2C:B1AA:3F52 (talk) 16:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archives. Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

The title of the search should be changed to War of Independence. Rebellion is a shameful word for thousands who have sacrificed their lives. 182.178.250.105 (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: see above Cannolis (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Please remove that ✝ sign which is added with the name of Rani Laxmi Bai as she was never a Christian. She was a proud Hindu🕉️ Jai Shree Ram 14.139.41.92 (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Shadow311 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not a cross, it's a dagger (†), indicating death. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 11:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the sign added with the name of Rani Laxmi Bai

Remove that sign and add 🕉️ sign instead Thanks 14.139.41.92 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not a cross, it's a dagger (†), indicating death. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 11:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
What does that suggested sign even mean? Slatersteven (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
It means Lakshmibai is dead. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 13:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
As does the cross, which is more readily understandable to English-speaking people. Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the article says "Rani Lakshmibai †" (meaning she was killed in action), but the IP confused the  † sign for a Christian cross (✝️) so I'm just clarifying. ― Ö S M A N  (talk · contribs) 11:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

title is biased

the use of the word " rebellion" is biased as it implies a negative connotation. It is b3tter to use the term " indian independence movement" 5.237.10.165 (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

See the talk page archive, for every answer to your points. Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

S s t _Revolt of 1857

2409:4063:6E01:1AE3:0:0:8D49:4C13 (talk) 09:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The what? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

{{subst:trim|1= Change | result = British victory to |result = End of British Company rule in India, Begin of Direct Crown Rule, Multi Faceted Impact Source Result of Rebellion: Chat GPT Who won or Lost Indian Mutiny One more source: [1]

In the third paragraph the main and biggest cause of mutiny is not written which is animal flesh cartridges which cause the revolt " The Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, summary treatment of some rich landowners and princes,[1][2] and scepticism about the improvements brought about by British rule.[a] Mutiny1857 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Chat GPT is not a reliable source, I also assume you are there IP above. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed)
I don't want to add one more source but here read one book from your own ancestor chapter 13 clearly written company lost the rebellion [2]https://books.google.com/books?id=Jg5BAAAAcAAJ 2409:4051:4E18:D7C5:8869:9A27:AF49:6F71 (talk) 17:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC) (WP:PA removed — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC))
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. — DaxServer (t·m·e·c) 08:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Metcalf & Metcalf 2006, pp. 100–103.
  2. ^ Brown 1994, pp. 85–86.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Rao Tula Ram was also participating in rebel 2409:40D1:102D:4FA9:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Already mentioned in the article. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Azimullah Khan Yusufzai as a party to the war.

Not sure what to say, Azimullah Khan Yusufzai, known as the Man behind the Indian War of Independence who planted the idea of anti-British rebellion in the head of Nana Sahib inspired by the Islamic Ottoman Empire and the perceived weakness of British soldiers in Crimea, was responsible for staging rebellion at Kanpur, he died along with and just exactly like the other rebel leaders after escaping to Nepal shortly post-1857. Wrote India's first national song, one for independence.

from the unknown, Azimullah Khan like a star, passed to the unknown. And, yet, during the interval he moved acioss the sky like a sun. True, he was not alone: there were other stars and sun which deluged the heaven with their radiations. To recall a few, there was that old venerable pole-star of the revolution, Bahadur Shah Zafar; there was that huge exploding star, the Rani of Jhansi; there was that inant star of Lucknow, Maulvi Ahmadullah; and of Bihar, Kumar Singh there were my riads of satelites scattered all over. Finally there were the great comets, Bakht Khan and Tantia Topi dashing across from horizon to horizon. But the fact remains that the deluge of radiant energy of freedom emanating from the different orbs, had its source in the fountain head of only one body — Azimullah Khan. All movements, all revolutions, even conspiracies and mutinies, require the cooperation of all persons associated with it and, in this sense, every individual participating in the movement is equally important whether he is the spy, the sepahi, or the commander of a regiment. In the last analysis, however, the man who stands above all is the man who has concieved of the movement, who has hit upon the idea, so to say, and given it an articulation, a voice, a purpose and a goal. That one man was, beyond doubt, Azimullah Khan. It was he who first of all, thought of it at London. ~ Syed Lutfullah

Tell me why he isn't a leader of the war. @RegentsPark

Someone can provide their reason against it. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 06:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@RevolutionaryPatriot: Thanks for your detailed explanation and for attempting to seek consensus rather than edit warring. On Wikipedia, fringe views are not given much, if any, credence. You would need to provide reliable sources from mainstream histories of the rebellion to support the inclusion of this material and you're not going to find any. That is the reason why your material is not includable in this article. RegentsPark (comment) 10:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
The book titled Man Behind the Indian War of Independence is good enough to provide reason and explanation. The subject was an ideological leader, prime instigator in the eyes of the British themselves and influenced the major military campaigns of the conflict. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Not as well being a party to a war and one of its major leaders are not the same thing. Slatersteven (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what distinguishes them, but sounds as though Azimullah Khan is both. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
No it does not, was he a military commander? Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he was Nana Sahib's military commander who was behind Cawnpore, of military background which is why all illustrations of him are him armour. But renowned to be so educated (for an Indian) with the languages he spoke, was also heavily involved in intelligence gathering for planning the actual revolt hence he also used his political, diplomatic wisdom throughout the war, do you feel that it is something that takes him out of the fold of consideration for a "Commanders and leaders" box. Perhaps ironically, if he played a less prominent role without utilising his other skills he'd be included in the infobox no problem? He continued working towards financial and military support against the British after 1857 till death. He was more than a military strategist who expanded the rebellion's reach, collaborating with leaders like Tatya Tope and the Ran of Jhansi. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Everything I have seen about him says he was not a millitary commander but a political advisor. So bring forth sources saying he was.
Yes by the way, being a diplomate does kind of take him out of the picture, lists of commanders tend to be those who command armies or in a given battle, not who are just part of a court. Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that is a prominent role of his. It is no reason to consider him as solely some peace diplomat of a court.
The military planning and intelligence of the war is thanks to Azimullah Khan. He was apart of the battlefield as a senior military advisor, a person who was a soldier himself.
  • as the British were going to enter Cawnpore, Nana Sahib, Tatya Tope and Azimullah Khan debated about what to do with their captives [1]
  • Nana Sahib’s most trusted commander Azimullah Khan[2]

Examples of the listed equivalence of Azimullah to other commanders on the infobox:
  • Along with Nana Sahib, Azimullah Khan, Ahmadullah Shah, Kunwar Singh, General Bakht Khan, Azizan, Begun Hazrat Mahal and other heroes, he is among the tallest figures of grand Indian struggle to the Company rule[3]
  • Bahadur Shah Zafar, Ram Mohan Roy, Nana Sahib and Azimullah Khan who were important figures in the revolt of 1857[4]
RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
So then (at n=best) a subordinate commander. and the last part would be an argument for removing them if they did not hold independent commands.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Azimullah Khan's role (along with that of Nana Saheb) in the 1857 rebellion was played up, motivated by different ideological viewpoints and goals, both by early British colonial history writers and by Indian nationalists (eg, Savarkar). This has continued till date in the popular and hagiographic writings online and in newspapers. But in recent decades historians have reevaluated and now believe that Azimullah played a role of more moderate importance. See, in particular:
  • Jarman, Francis (December 2008). "Azimullah Khan—A Reappraisal of One of the Major Figures of the Revolt of 1857". South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies. 31 (3): 419–449.
  • Wagner, Kim A. (2010). The Great Fear of 1857: Rumours, Conspiracies and the Making of the Indian Uprising. Peter Lang. ISBN 978-1-906165-27-7.
And in Wagner don't just read pages 2-3 where Azimmullah is mentioned because the author later in the introduction deconstructs these conspiratorial narratives. Which is not to say that Azimullah Khan is a figure of no importance. For example, see
Azimullah plays a relatively prominent role in Ward's account of the Siege of Cawnpore.
(TL;DR)  In this article, I would suggest name-dropping Azimullah Khan somewhere in the body though not in the infobox. Siege of Cawnpore can go into some further details about what he did there. And the Azimullah Khan article can be considerably expanded and strengthened using the above listed sources, for example, instead of relying on dated non-WP:HISTRS sources and newspaper profiles. Abecedare (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
So a reversion of my edit in full, excluding the infobox name listing. Im still not convinced on him not being in the infobox, but the edits on the rest of the article are to be included. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 05:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I wish you had waited for a consensus to develop but in order to avoid another revert cycle, I have tweaked your addition (diff from your edit; diff from status quo). If there are still any disagreements on if/how to mention Azimullah Khan in this article, anyone is welcome to restore the status quo and we can continue the discussion per WP:BRD. Abecedare (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Why did you remove the part where he is in the listed revolutionaries who fled/died to nepal after 1857, and the literature section? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Regarding the former: Essentially for the same reason as for not listing Azimullah Khan along with Nana Sahib in the infobox. The concerned sentence is By 1859, rebel leaders Bakht Khan and Nana Sahib had either been slain or had fled and it would be incongruous to add Nana Sahib's aide's name to that list of "rebel leaders".
As for the latter: The literature sentence India's first national song was made during the War of Independence, Payam-e-Azadi or ‘The Message of Freedom’ written by Azimullah Khan Yusufzai was published from Delhi in Urdu and Hindi. made an extremal claim of being "India's first national song" that is not even supported by the (non-HISTRS) cited sources of a CPI (ML) party publication and a GoI website, which qualify their claim with "what can well be called" and " one of the first nationalistic...", respectively. And with those qualifiers, the claim becomes WP:UNDUE.
Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
So, Azimullah Khan couldn't be listed there because he can only be considered as below Nana Sahib, hence not relevant to the readers wanting to know the outcome of the war regarding the fate of leaders of the revolt.
Is it that you don't believe it is the first national song of India?
Anything else called "India's first national song" is after 1857, more like during Independence movement prior to 1947. Hence there is no confusion for the readers as nothing predates this, because it's india's first nationalistic/patriotic national song. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
None of those sources are close to reliable for this topic area. Please do read WP:HISTRS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Abecedare (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
So why did I not include these sources in the article in the first place? Think about why that is.
Also, Is it that you don't believe it is the first national song of India? Why do you think this is untrue? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Indian Campaign - Cawnpore
  2. ^ Tawaif spy from the siege of Cawnpore
  3. ^ Tatya Tope - Revolutionary fighter
  4. ^ IMPERIALIST IDEOLOGY AND THE COMMUNAL QUESTION IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
  5. ^ Param-e-Azadi
  6. ^ Milli Gazette, an Indian News Publication
  7. ^ First Patriotic Song of India

Position of Alambagh is wrong

Alambagh is south of Lucknow, not north. Some should correct the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karavadgoo (talk • contribs) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

The title Indian Rebellion of 1857 should be changed to Indian Independence Revolution-I of 1857

As now the title of tha page is Indian Rebellion of 1857 it describes as the indian rebellion towards britishers but actually it was Indias first freedom fight for Independence in 1857 hence the page should be named as Indian Independence Revolution-I of 1857 as its the fact. Prajwal6649 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive for every answer as to why not. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

Add to In Popular Culture > Literature: "One section of Victoria Holt's 1988 novel The India Fan takes place in Delhi leading up to and during the 1857 rebellion. Through the eyes of the protagonist, readers learn how the rebellion affected Indian and British citizens." Sivarta1128 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this material that verifies the content and indicates that the book is notable enough for including this in the article. RegentsPark (comment) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Rebellion_of_1857/Archive_14&oldid=1258971366"