Talk:Barrackpore mutiny of 1824

Some comments on the assessment

While the references are good, they are at times misrepresented, and the tone is rather one-sided. For example, the British officers had to flee because they were "unable to face the ire of the soldiers under Bindee’s command", whereas later the Sepoys "fought valiantly but they were outnumbered". And "Bindee especially was subjected to brutal torture." - no he wasn't, at least not according to the source. He was hanged, and then his dead body was displayed in chains as a deterrence. I'll try improving the article a little. Huon (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC) }}

§ Author's rebuttal

Dear Editor Huon ,

I highly appreciate for the pain that you have undertaken to improve this article. Also I would like to thank you for your assessments and feedbacks. Having said that I would like to quickly touch upon couple of quick points -

You felt that the tone is rather one sided which is an interesting observation considering that I grew up in Barrackpore. Still I would like defend my position on two of your stated examples.

° The British officers had to flee because they were "unable to face the ire of the soldiers under Bindee’s command", whereas later the Sepoys "fought valiantly but they were outnumbered". You felt this narrative to be one-sided.

47th Regiment BNI was fighting against 1st (Royal) Regiment, British 47th Regiment, One squadron of horse artillery, Governor General's body guards, 62nd Regiment of BNI, 26th Regiment of BNI. When one regiment fights against six regiments, does one has to have much imagination to know the fight lopsided and to call that 47th BNI was "outnumbered"?

° "Bindee especially was subjected to brutal torture." You observe: "he wasn't, at least not according to the source. He was hanged, and then his dead body was displayed in chains as a deterrence." - Here the key word in my defense will "at least not according to the source". There is a problem in writing this wikipedia article only from the viewpoint of colonial officers of British East India Company.

Captain Pogson especially some could say, was prejudiced and racist. ("It is not then to be supposed that a shrewd and cunning race like Burmans" --{Pogson|1833|p=8}, "If an apprehension bordering panic was excited in the minds of our ignorant and superstitious sepoys"-- {Pogson|1833|p=8}). It is not hard to assume why did Pogson played down the entire incident. I am quoting Encyclopedia Britannica that writes "the incident nearly led to the recall of the British governor-general, Lord Amherst, and the military authorities were criticized for their rigidity and vindictive harshness." However Pogson conveniently misses to mention any of these.

For Bindee's torture I completely based on Outlook, India. Also there are multiple oral accounts of Bindee's torture widespread in the area. Some could argue that it is unfair to say there was no torture as Captain Pogson, who ordered executions in a Kangaroo court, did not mention that. I would try to bring more concrete evidences from other Indian archives to support my position.

° Native Sepoys were not provided with Bullocks to pull their carriage cart. This was the primary reason for the mutiny. Pogson and Richie both described in details on the importance of Bullocks on this mutiny. Astonishingly after last edit there is not a single mention of Bullocks in Barrackpore Mutiny, which is somewhat astonishing and makes this article incomplete.

° I guess some inaccuracies have been introduced in the spree of edit and correcting of tone. One example would be "Other historians, including Rudrangshu Mukherjee, argue that Pandey's incident was an individual act of defiance and do not accord much significance for the later rebellion to the 1824 events."

- Mangal Pandey is associated with 1857 incident and he is not involved in 1824 incident. And stating Pandey's incident "and do not accord much significance for the later rebellion", is highly controversial and to the extent of being laughable. Mangal Pandey is well regarded to start the Indian Rebellion of 1857 which ended company rule of India. In the last paragraph I was trying to compare the degree and scale of these two mutinies where I observed that Bindee's 1824 rebellion was greater in scale where as Mangal's 1857 incident was an act of personal defiance. However 1824 incident failed to inspire others to start rebellion but 1857 incident did influence others to start rebellions. I would request more caution in making such frivolous change just under pretext of making the tone neutral.

Thanks again for all your hard work. I would like to mention that I don't question your intention however there could be contention between Indian account of the incident and Colonial account of the incident, I am sure you understand my concern. Sincerely, Avskbhatta (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)§

Let me address this in order.

1. I don't doubt the 47th Native Infantry was heavily outnumbered by the troops the British sent to crush the mutiny. But the British officers were outnumbered even worse than just 6:1 by their mutinous soldiers. Yet those phrases made it sound as if the British officers lacked the moral strength to stand up to their opponents while physical superiority is made the only reason for the sepoys' defeat. There are several problems here. Firstly, as I said, it introduces a judgement of actions; that's not appropriate. I could just as well make the section say that the officers "withdrew before the superior numbers of mutineers" or that they "prudently" awaited reinforcements - that would describe the same conduct but would make it suddenly sound much more positive. Secondly, the British accounts - obviously the victors are writing history, but Pogson is the only eyewitness account available - do not even mention that the Sepoys fought at all. In fact, Pogson's extremely detailed account mentions that the sepoys prepare to fire on Nov. 1 (whereupon the British officers disengage to save their lives), and he does acknowledge that the British suffered some casualties on Nov. 2 - but those are due to friendly fire; he never mentions that the Sepoys ever actively fight back. No other source mentions any British casualties or the Sepoys fighting.
2. Here the key word in my defense will "at least not according to the source". Sorry, no. Wikipedia summarizes what reliable published sources report. If no source reports that Bindee was tortured - and Outlook does not, only describing the gibbeting - we cannot just make up our own account of what might have happened.
3. Pogson, as a man of the early 19th century, certainly was racist. However, he's not particularly biased in favor of the British. In fact, he is highly critical of his superiors (and not in high enough a position to he himself considered responsible, so he doesn't need to justify his own conduct). He blames British negligence for the outbreak of the mutiny. He argues that it could have been resolved peacefully if only the British authorities had been a little less heavy-handed in their negotiations. He seems to consider the mutineers' demands entirely reasonable, or at least something that the British should have anticipated and granted well before the mutiny. He lauds the mutineers' initial calmness under fire. He says he found the British "justice" inappropriately quick, and he tells that he personally intervened to save one person from being hanged where there was an issue of identity (and while he was involved in carrying out the executions of everyone hanged except Bindee, he was following orders there, not ordering the executions himself). He didn't even publish that memoir but only wrote it "for private circulation" - in context, it's obvious the reason is that it's so highly critical of the higher-ranked Britons involved that he did not want to create or enter a public controversy. He doesn't mention calls for Amherst's resignation, but one reason might be that it's irrelevant to his purpose (learning from the errors at Barrackpore, as he sees them), or that may simply have been something he was not personally involved in, making it off-topic for his memoir.
4. While I did not explicitly mention the bullocks, my version of the page did point to "insufficient logistics" and stated that "no transportation was provided for the sepoys' luggage". I'm certainly not opposed to explicitly mentioning bullocks.
5. Outlook says: "Others, like historian Mudrangshu Rukherjee, who holds that Pangshee's was 'an individual act of defiance against British officers', are loath to accord much importance to the events of 1824". I think my summary captures the gist of Rukherjee's stance. You may disagree with Rukherjee, but putting your personal analysis before that of a historian which is reported in a published source is original research and should not be done on Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

§ Dear Huon I would like to reflect on your comments below:

1. I am glad that you accept the word "out numbered", but you did delete the word. Your reason is “Yet those phrases made it sound as if the British officers lacked the moral strength to stand up to their opponents while physical superiority is made the only reason for the sepoys' defeat.” “British officers lacked the moral strength to stand up to their opponents while physical superiority is made the only reason for the sepoys' defeat. There are several problems here. Firstly, as I said, it introduces a judgement of actions; that's not appropriate.”

Now all the sources are unanimous that Regiments under the command of British Officers bombarded the peaceful and nonviolent sepoys who were only unyielding with their legitimate and reasonable demands. So much for the British morality and appropriate judgment of actions.

After the Oriental Herald account and comparing it with other accounts, we have clearly understood the nature of the conflict. And I am sure the matter is settled now. Avskbhatta (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

2. “If no source reports that Bindee was tortured - and Outlook does not, only describing the gibbeting - we cannot just make up our own account of what might have happened.”

I am sure had you read the Outlook article once more before writing these strong words, you would have found a sentence in the first column of p.20 that reads “Bindee was singled out for particularly brutal treatment - his limbs were chained, he was hung from Pipal tree and his body was allowed to rot for days”

Even Captain Pogson did mention at page 31, that Bindee was gibbeted. Just for record I would like to mention that in gibbet, convicts were hung by a chain and left to die of thirst. And then the corpse was left to rot for moths. Now if gibbet fails to qualify as torture then I would not prefer to argue with you. Avskbhatta (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

3. Oriental Herald article confirms that 26th and 62nd Regiment were not completely loyal as there were many native defectors from these two regiments. Pogson's account does not contain this information. British Herald also gives the break up of the hanged sepoys where we see almost 50% were from 62nd and 26th. Captain Pogson also forgot to mention the mass scale man slaughter by the Britishers especially forgot to mention massacre of innocent locals. Let's assume Pogson forgot when recording the incident almost nine years later intentionally or unintentionally but one thing is certain that Captain Pogson's account is neither hundred percent truthful nor completely reliable. Captain Pogson's tone of account sounds one sided and compels us to wonder why did he play down the entire incident?

I guess here we agree to disagree. A third review is necessary preferably neither by a British nor by an Indian. Avskbhatta (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

4. As you are not opposed to explicitly mentioning bullocks I would like to revert back to the mention of bullocks. Because it shows that the sepoys' demand was trivial and was easily satiable. But the Britishers did not meet this demand. Avskbhatta (talk) 04:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

5. I am certainly not putting my personal analysis neither I am disregarding Rudranghshu Mukherjee's theory. I am opposed to the convoluted sentence where you are trying to mention two aspects of 1857 incident. First being Mangal Pandey was not influenced by Bindee Tiwari and second being Pandey's act was individual act of defiance. On reading your sentence, I first thought, you mistakenly attributed 1824 incident to Mangal Pandey. I simplified the sentence and omitted the "Individual act of defiance" comment as this is debatable and is well covered in Mangal Pandey#1857 Indian Rebellion. Moreover Rudrangshu Mukherjee's theory was mentioned to contrast Amalendu De's theory, individual defiance piece is irrelevant now as it was originally mentioned to show 1824 was an organized incident and Mangal Pandey's incident was an individual act.

Note - It is important to correctly spell the names. Reading names like "Mudrangshu Rukherjee", "Pangshee" is painful. If you are unfamiliar with Indian names, I would not say that you should refrain from editing the subjects on Indian history however I would definitely suggest you to be more careful. I am sure you will take my suggestion positively . Avskbhatta (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for misspeling Mukherjee and Pandey's names on this talk page. I would have preferred to copy-paste to avoid the possibility of error, but unfortunately that's not possible from Google Books, and by typing from memory errors of this kind crept in. I'll be more careful with unfamiliar names. I'll also note that I spelled Mukherjee correctly in the article itself.

That said, I'm glad we agree that the sepoys of the 47th did not in fact "fight valiantly" - it did not fight at all.

Regarding torture, yes, Pogson confirms that Bindee (or Binda) was gibbeted: His body was "suspended in chains on an adjacent gibbet where it remained some months". That agrees with Outlook's account of Binda's treatment: "his limbs were chained, he was hung from a pipal tree, and his body was allowed to rot for days" - even longer than that, according to Pogson. However, that is a routine description of gibbeting, and Pogson states that it happened "after he was hung". He wasn't left to die of thirst or hunger, he was dead already, and gibbeting his dead body cannot be considered torture. No source I'm aware of says he was alive when gibbeted, or that he was tortured. I would appreciate if you followed what the sources report and wouldn't simply make up stuff based on your own analysis.

I agree that the individual defiance part is not particularly relevant (unless you take it to mean "not inspired by others", which is how I understood Mukherjee). The other part of Mukherjee's commentary, that the events of 1824 should not be accorded much importance - is relevant, and it should be maintained as another point of view with support among historians. Huon (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

§Dear Huon, first of all I regret engaging in a verbal dual with you. As I said, the subject was close to my heart and I was particularly not fond of your "One sided" comment. I was mostly inspired by local folklores to write this article. Looking back your comments motivated me to research further. I have made changes per the recently discovered materials. Most of your suggestions if not all are taken. In light of the recently added material, I am sure you would agree the event was not as simple as described by Pogson. I removed most of the contents taken from Outlook and the historians whom they consulted as they were also supporter of the theory of "valiant fight". I have taken most of the contents from Oriental Herald. Pogson's materials mostly stayed. Interestingly I found an essay from Chief of Army staff Gen V.K. Singh. He had access to the archives of Indian army and colonial army so I borrowed some contents from him. If you are okay, I would again request for your review. We both spent some time on this subject, it will be great if we finally end with a "B" class rating. Avskbhatta (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

While growing up in town, I heard multiple folklores on Bindee's torture so I would try to do further research on the matter. In all the accounts I read, Unlike others who were hanged, Bindee was hung from chain. Wish I would have found Bindee was hung alive from chain. Till I found that he would continue to be not tortured but gibbeted. Thank you. Avskbhatta (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Contradictory sources

Outlook reports the sepoys "drove away the officers" and "held the cantonment for two days". That seems misleading. All other accounts confirm that the mutiny broke out on November 1 and was crushed by the British on November 2. In particular, Pogson, an eyewitness, does not mention that the British left the cantonment altogether and states that the other reginments remained loyal to the British, with the commander of the 26th Regiment offering to attack the 47th right on the parade ground on the 1st of November. He later explicitly refers to "that part [of the cantonment] which was occupied by the 47th Regiment", indicating that the regiment had not seized the entire cantonment. All other sources agree that the British reinforcements arrived early on the next day, 2 November. Since some of the secondary sources agree with the primary source, with just one dissenting voice, I'll follow Pogson's and Ritchie's account. Huon (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

---

§ Author's rebuttal:

Their will be contradiction considering the nature of the subject. There will be a colonial government's account and an Indian account.

As mentioned before there are problems in basing the article on the narratives of colonial officers of East India company, as they were later criticized for their role by even British government. These officers would always trivialize the scale of mutiny and would try to justify their conduct. It is important to remember that they they were fired after 1857 mutinies, and India was brought under direct rule of the British Crown.

I quoted Outlook which comes from a respectable publishing house of The Hindu, to accommodate the Indian narrative. I would assume they have done research before publishing their article. If only narratives of the East India Company are taken, the Wikipedia article would lose its neutrality. Thanks, Avskbhatta (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I discussed Pogson's personal stance above. More relevantly, he gives an extremely detailed account of events, reporting what he did at what hour. Whether the events took one day or two isn't really the point of Pogson's account, and there's no reason to believe he simply skipped an entire day. The other references except Outlook - including Encyclopedia Britannica, which probably no longer is much interested in making 1820s Britons look good - also say the mutiny was crushed on November 2. Another problem with Outlook's account is that it forgets the other two regiments of native infantry that were stationed in Barrackpore. If the 47th had indeed held the cantonment for two days, where would that leave the 26th and the 62nd? We know they remained loyal enough to their officers to join in the slaughter of their erstwile comrades, and I doubt the mutinous sepoys managed to drive them out - there's certainly no account of a battle between the various Native Infantry regiments. In fact, Pogson credits the 26th with saving his and his commanding officer's life by their imposing presence on 1 November and later refers to their meals while they still stand on the parade ground close to the mutineers. Huon (talk) 21:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

On my talk page Avskbhatta presented the Oriental Herald. That's indeed a helpful source, but it doesn't make me doubt Pogson but rather confirms his account in all essentials that were in doubt:

• The mutiny was crushed on 2 November.
• The mutinous sepoys did not fight at all. In fact, the author argues the sepoys still greeted their officers and were inclined to obey them in everything except the order to march.
• The cantonment was not abandoned entirely by the British nor taken over by the sepoys of the 47th.
• The author - highly critical of British conduct and not shy of accusing his countrymen of cruelty - does not mention torture of prisoners.

On the other hand, it says that parts of the 26th and 62nd regiments joined the 47th. We didn't have a source for that aspect before. Huon (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

---

§ Interestingly Huon observed “Encyclopedia Britannica, which probably no longer is much interested in making 1820s Britons look good”. I must admit - some 1820 Brirons from The Oriental Herald were more committed in this act, only Captain Pogson seemed to be loyal to the cause.Avskbhatta (talk) 01:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

§ Oriental Herald article confirms that 26th and 62nd Regiment were not completely loyal as there were many native defectors from these two regiments. Pogson's account does not contain this information. But British Herald also gives the break up of the hanged sepoys where we see almost 50% were from 62nd and 26th. Captain Pogson also forgot to mention the mass scale man slaughter by the Britishers especially forgets to mention massacre of innocent locals. Let's assume Pogson forgot when recording the incident almost nine years later deliberately or unintentionally but one thing is certain that Captain Pogson's account is neither hundred percent truthful nor completely reliable. Avskbhatta (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I never disputed on the edits of your dates 02-Nov-1824 or 03-Nov-1824 and other minor details - I did question Captain Pogson's tone of account which sounds one sided and compels us to wonder why did he play down the entire incident?

§ Even per Pogson's account, Bindee was gibbeted which means he was hung by chain and left to die of thirst and hunger. And then the corpse was left in that position for months to rot in open public display. If gibbet fails to qualify as torture then nothing will qualify.

§ Even as per Captain Pogson, sepoys set up pickets, sentries and patrols over night. These are done when you capture and control some territory. Whether full cantonment was taken over or not is unclear however considering the scale of defection and calling Horse Artillery from Dum-Dum for infantry assault when 62nd and 26th Native Infantry available at location as per Pogson's account, compels us to believe that significant area and men of Barrackpore were not loyal to the Britishers. Avskbhatta (talk) 03:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Grammar issues

Please stop removing the grammar template. There *are* grammar issues with the article. The editor removing the template is the one making the grammar mistakes. Please restore the template and stop WP:edit warring, which will attract administrative actions. (Hohum ^@) 19:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Hohum, I was working on the aricle. The banner was removed when I tried to save my work on a version where banner was not there. Regret the inconvenience. Avskbhatta (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I have reintroduced it until the grammar issues are fixed. By the way, we tend to use the indent convention explained at WP:Indent on talk pages. (Hohum ^@) 01:16, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear User:Hohum, a lot of editors did help doing the copy edit. It could be an endless activity considering the nature of the job. Please let me know when we can consider it to be over and remove the banner.Thanks,Avskbhatta (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The grammar issues are now fixed. Thanks to User:AustralianRupert. I was being little impatient. Finally the grammar banner is removed. I am happy. Needless to mention copy-edit improved the article a lot. Regards. Avskbhatta (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The article has been significantly improved by the work recently put into it. Good job! (Hohum ^@) 15:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian last names

Normally, individuals are mentioned by their full name at first use in an article, and after that by last name / surname / formal name only. I'm unsure on the convention for Indian names. Should Bindee Tiwary be Bindee or Tiwary after first use? The manual of style entries for this are MOS:SURNAME and MOS:GIVENNAME. (Hohum ^@) 01:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:HohumSuggestion accepted. On first instance his full name was mentioned. There after his first name was used as per Indian standard. Last name is used by the Indians only if there is a name conflict (Two persons with same name).Avskbhatta (talk) 03:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief, India, General Sir Edward Paget

"Commander-in-Chief, India, General Sir Edward Paget" should be referred to with the full title on first use, but can thereafter be refered to simply as "Paget", rather than the currently confusing mix of "Sir Edward Paget" and "Commander-in-Chief". Per MOS:HONORIFIC (Hohum ^@) 01:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:HohumAs per your suggestion this convention was followed for both Paget and Amherst. Avskbhatta (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Citation coding errors

G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your efforts so far. One thing that stands out to me is that there appear to be a few issues with the coding that is being used for the citations, which are essentially rendering the clickable citations as dead links. If you install this script – User:Ucucha/HarvErrors – the errors will be highlighted in red. Is it possible to fix these? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed (I think). Nthep (talk) 14:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:AustralianRupert and User:Nthep for all your hard work. It helps. I will check more on citation errors.Regds.

PS. I am not a native speaker of English language hence those errors that I regret. Glad that you found the article interesting. Scandalous affair in-deed that was tried to be erased from history. And they were partly successful. Very few outside scholarly circle is aware of the incident. Not even present in any history book in India to my knowledge.Avskbhatta (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Nthep, All the links are working except one Ref#16 - The Edinburgh Annual Register For 1824, Volume 17 that is still not working. I am a greenhorn. Seek your assistance. Thanks.Avskbhatta (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I've fixed this for you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:AustralianRupert. Regards,Avskbhatta (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Assessment: Coverage and accuracy - Request reconsideration of assessment

Hello Editors, during initial quality assessment of the article, it was found that it did not meet the the criterion of coverage and accuracy.

• Coverage: Please help me to understand, which sections need amplification or if any new section need to be added for completeness of the subject. Note, I am not sure how latest is the assessment. Lot of information has been added recently to improve coverage. Please help.
• Accuracy: almost every sentence is referring to at-least one verifiable online source. More than 10 source materials have been referred that includes first person account, old newspaper/journal reporting, old parliament proceeding records, books by historians and essay by Chief of Army Staff (India) to cover all perspectives. There is no Citeation Needed tag. Unsure how to improve accuracy. Help me to understand. Avskbhatta (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Quality Assessment: Grammar - Request reconsideration of assessment

Hello Editors, during initial quality assessment of the article, it was found that it did not meet the the criterion of grammar and style. However, after that editors esp. AustralianRupert, Hohum patiently and extensively did copy-edit. Each sentence, each paragraph was checked, changed, modified and improved. Can I request for a reassessment please? Thanks. Avskbhatta (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Importance Scale - Low Importance

Hello Editors, during quality assessment of the article, it was found on importance scale it has low importance. I would respectfully like to disagree. In defensive estimate 180 people were murdered, British parliament debated two days culminating in a floor vote and its importance on the psyche of Indian soldiers of British army and the event of Mangal Pandey to start Indian Rebellion. I would request reconsideration. PS. A similar mutiny in Vellore, is assessed to be highly important by WikiProject. These two mutinies are mentioned in a same breath by the armed force's historians. See V.K. Singh. Avskbhatta (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In the course of Indian warfare there were hundreds of battles that cost a few hundred lives. British pariliament debates and votes year-round. This event did not significantly affect India as a whole and even for the era of British rule historians don't agree on how much importance to assign to it. Note the definition of high importance given by the assessment scale: "This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge." Neither article nor the Vellore mitiny one covers a general area of knowledge. I think "low" is about adequate; in fact that was the Vellore mutiny importance assessment too until someone unilaterally declared it high importance a few months back. Huon (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Dear Huon, I honor your assessment on "Importance". However I would like to mention couple of points respectfully.

• Firstly, it is true that Indian warfare there were hundreds of battles that cost a few hundred lives. However this was hardly a battle. Under the instruction of British Commander-in-Chief of India and in full knowledge of Governor-General of India, British army regiments rounded up fifteen hundred native Indian soldiers (who were doing some collective bargaining on their compensation like a trade union movement) and bombarded them with artillery. And when these poor sepoys were fleeing, 3 to 5 infantry regiments indiscriminately fired upon them killing hundreds. Even between forty to fifty local residents were killed during this murderous spree. This is a rarest of rare event and was not a battle, some could say not even a mutiny. It was a massacre and a rarest of rare one. Can you point out a parallel of such a massacre during British occupation of India other than Jallianwala Bagh massacre?
• Secondly, on the argument "British parliament debates and votes year-round", I am sure they do. But how many times British Parliament debated wrongdoing of Commander-in-Chief and Governor General of a colony on the charge of committing murder of hundreds of their own native soldiers.But in this case they did after 3 years of the event when the report of court of inquiry was being suppressed. Amherst became very unpopular among Britons when they learned about this scandalous affair. Paget was already removed in 1825 and was safely transferred to some military college in Britain. Still MPs unearthed everything and debated. In May 1827, Amherst resigned. Some would find the event extra-ordinary. please see
• Lastly, on "This event did not significantly affect India as a whole and even for the era of British rule". Encyclopedia Britannica calls this even dress rehearsal of Great Indian Mutiny of 1857. The Governor-General was almost removed. The relation between Indian soldiers and British officers deteriorated irrevocably which was culminated in 1857 Indian mutiny. In-deed, the event did not affect India or even that era of British rule for sure!

"General area of knowledge", the term is little abstract, some could say. You admit "historians don't agree on how much importance to assign to it", does that mean it has less importance? But you deduced otherwise as you "think 'low' is about adequate".

My intention is not to argue but to state my points. Respect as always. Thanks,Avskbhatta (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Meaning changed slightly after Copy-Edit

Hello AustralianRupert thanks for the extensive and patient copy-editing. It helped the article a great deal. However there are couple minor concerns I would like to point out:

• According to Pogson, they were found "unworthy of confidence or the name of soldiers for not exerting commanding influence on native sepoys.": Concern is on "According to Pogson". Possibly they were not Pogson's word. Pogson quoted without mentioning the source. I have reasons to believe. The article on the Mutiny at Barrackpore in The Oriental Herald, Volume 13 while describing the Parliamentary Debate it wrote - "On 4th November, a genral order had been issued from Fort William which stated that the mutiny could not have occurred without previous knowledge of the native officers, it therefore directed that the 47th Regiment including its native officers should be disgraced, the native officers discharged, and declared unworthy of the confidence of Government."The Oriental Herald, Volume 13, Page 181. Can you reconsider the rephrasing the sentence please? Thanks.Avskbhatta (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • G'day, I added "According to Pogson" because we are required to attribute quotes in text (at least that is the standard that is expected of featured articles). Before I edited the sentence, it had a reference beside the quotation that indicated it was directly from Pogson: "They were found ‘unworthy of confidence or the name of soldiers for not exerting commanding influence on native sepoys.’ [33]" with ref 33 being "Pogson 1833, p. 32". I can only assume that whoever added that reference was quoting directly from it. If that is not the case, then please change it to how you think it should be as I would only be guessing. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Hello AustralianRupert, I have made the change. Now I followed Oriental Herald instead of Pogson. Considering my famous grammatical skill, I would request your quick review :). Thanks,Avskbhatta (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Hello AustralianRupert, thanks again for the effort. Rgds, Avskbhatta (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes by an user that almost amount to vandalism

Dear user MPS1992, thanks for your time and attempt to improve the article. However, after your changes, it is debatable that if the grammar and language improved or deteriorated. Moreover, meanings changed significantly because of some of the edits.

1. OLD: Moreover, these three regiments consisted mostly of high caste Hindus who had reservations about crossing the sea (see kala pani) preventing the authority to send them by sea. CHANGED: Moreover, these three regiments consisted mostly of high caste Hindus who had reservations about crossing the sea die to the kala pani taboo. They did not die. Did you misspell due? You should be careful when you are changing under the pretext of putting better words. Also wiki guidelines suggest to use Because of rather than due to as later is more formal. "Preventing authority to send them by sea" is an useful info, unsure why was it chopped!
2. The article was consistently written in American English. Now it is confused mix of queen English and American English. "Rumor" has become "rumour" but "labor" stayed as is.
3. Joseph Hume has Mr as prefix but Charles Williams-Wynn does not have that honor for an unknown reason.
4. Bindee was captured on November 9 and was punished on November 10. "on the next day" is important. But it was edited.
5. Lord Amherst's picture has a title now Earl Amherst, Governor General of India, condemned as an "evil genius" by the British press for his involvement. In Wikipedia, we should maintain some civility. A newspaper wrote these lines. Does this mean, his picture should be captioned condemned as an "evil genius" by the British press? The language is pejorative.
6. OLD: criticizing the conduct of the military and appealed for a fresh investigation to identify those responsible as he observed a lack of will from Amherst in finding the real culpritsCHANGED: criticizing the conduct of the military, and appealed for a fresh investigation to identify those responsible -- he perceived that Amherst was showing a lack of will in finding the real culprits. Inclusion of -- is interesting, i hope had it improved the cause of "better words". To me, it did not help the cause.
7. The proposition of fresh investigation and presentation of inquiry report was defeated in floor vote. Why floor vote is removed? Did it improve grammar? I am not sure.

The examples are endless. I would request you to be more cautious and discuss in Talk page before rampantly changing. The article is undergoing assessment.

Dear AustralianRupert, seek your advice on how to deal with the situation. Thanks,Avskbhatta (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

G'day, I think the changes have helped to further tighten the grammar. Potentially a couple of the points you raise could be adjusted, but overall MPS1992's changes are a definite improvement, in my opinion. Please remember, copyediting is not an exact science and frequently a copy editor will have to try to interpret meaning when dealing with grammatical issues. Finally, please do not label such changes as vandalism as they are clearly good faith. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I will hopefully look at some of these issues later today. MPS1992 (talk) 09:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

References

*I have no problem changing the article from American English to British English. Only point is, it has to be done consistently. And a banner has to be put in as it is there in Indian Rebellion of 1857.

*It has to be decided that whether we will prefix Mr. to the names of individuals. If we drop Mr. it has to be done uniformly.

*Floor vote", "Preventing the authority to send them by sea", "On the next day" should stay per my opinion as they are giving info.

*Labeling the words "condemned", "Evil genius" in Amherst's picture looks aggressive to me.Can we not tone down, just a proposal. If we read sources, Paget was directing. It was Paget's decision to bombard unprepared sepoys from rear. In Paget's supervision Britishers continued "snipping all morning" - per Bengal Hurkaru. Amherst gave Paget a free hand and tried to suppress the inquiry report possibly to save him from a punitive action. Although he(?) transferred Paget to a Military College in England in 1825.

MPS1992, I sincerely regret my words. Thanks for your time and effort. Regards,Avskbhatta (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

That is no problem. I have greatly enjoyed reading and editing this article, whose existence is very largely due to your excellent work. A few points:

• There is no reason for the article to be in American English, as the events occurred in Bengal and the sources are mostly or entirely in British English. I agree it should be consistent, and I will remove any further Americanisms that I can find in addition to those you have mentioned. Please feel free to change any that I miss. I think many may have already been fixed by Keith or by AustralianRupert. I do not know about banners for such things, but please feel free to add one.
• According to MOS we should not be using "Mr" anywhere. I agree it should be consistent. I think some of these have now been fixed, but I will fix the rest. Incidentally, any Britishers mentioned who were Members of Parliament are notable by Wikipedia standards and therefore articles either do or should exist about them. Once we work out who they are, these can be wikilinked and their full names given -- I am thinking of the "Davies" in "Wynn and Davies" here.
• Floor vote redirects to Voting methods in deliberative assemblies, which it should not because the text "floor vote" does not appear in that article. So does "floor vote" mean that a Division of the assembly occurred, or that one did not? The exact numbers suggest the former, but the article should be clear what is meant. MPS1992 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
• I will look again at the sending-by-sea and next day issues.
• I will re-word the caption under the picture of Amherst a little more. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions suggests that captions should "lead the reader into the article" instead of simply stating what the picture is of. The caption of the Mangal Pandey image would benefit from some expansion on this basis too, although it is difficult to word something appropriate. MPS1992 (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• The article is now in Indian English which is close to British English. Appropriate banner has been put in.
• All name prefix esp. Mr. have been removed. I am not getting any reference to Colonel Davies".", no idea who he was. I found one Davies Gilbert, but he was no Colonel.
• "The gallery was then cleared for division; and the numbers were - For the motion, 44 - Against it, 176 -Majority against it, 132." - The Oriental Herald, Volume 13, P-199. Hence it is safe to assume Division of the assembly occurred. I did not want to go technical on parliamentary proceeding as that may shift the attention of the reader rather simply mentioned voting occurred on the floor of Parliament. So I would stick to my request. If you could improve the language, please do but not at the cost of the information.
• Thanks for reconsidering Amherst's title. A caption added in the Mangal Pandey image.

Thanks & Regards,Avskbhatta (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• The WP:ENGVAR looks good. I will check whether criticising or criticizing is best -- I may have adopted some Americanism myself! -- and will make it consistent.
• There is only one mention of Davies in the article, I agree he is not a Colonel as far as we know so far.
• I think providing exact numbers makes it clear that a Division of the house occurred, so the term "floor vote" adds nothing as well as being unclear. MPS1992 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

CE

Tidied prose, a few typos and layout items, references. Managed to hit an edit conflict too, apols. Rv as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Languages

All sources are in English. The fighters spoke several other languages, at least Bengali language, didn't they? Have they published any leaflets, composed poems or songs? What were the non-English names of the mutiny?Xx236 (talk) 12:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)