Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 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)

• Support per nomination. @Fowler&fowler, your !vote please. PadFoot2008 (talk) 08:29, 6 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,

• https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/unsung-heroes-detail.htm?314
• https://www.thebetterindia.com/132820/rani-avanti-bai-ramgarh-army-fight-british/
• https://feminisminindia.com/2018/05/21/rani-avantibai-warrior-queen/

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)