righttry.blogg.se

I would not object to adding a mention to the term "War of Independenc" or something similar to the introduction. apart from anything else, most articles won't have a section dedicated to the various names Tomandlu 13:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC) We certainly can't do that now that you've moved it to the bottom of the article. Sikandarji 12:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Given that the article has a section devoted to discussion of the various names and controversies/reasons, can't we just leave all such references to that section? I take the point about "alternative common names", but, in this case, I think there are valid grounds against such an approach. It should therefore be included on the list of alternative names, as should "Indian Mutiny" which, as john k has pointed out in rather forceful language, is the most commonly-used name outside the Subcontinent (though much less widely used in academic publications than it used to be). Whilst I think the title "First War of Indian Independence" is an absurd one, it is widely used in Indian school history textbooks and will be familiar to English-speaking Indian wikipedians (of whom there are a great many). john k 12:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Tempers getting frayed again I see. We shouldn't confuse our readers out of misguided wishes not to "offend" by merely mentioning names that are not actually offensive. "War of Independence" has not even been demonstrated to be the most common name in India. "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most prevalent names for the conflict. The general guideline is that alternative common names go in the intro. And who gives a fuck if "Indian Mutiny" is British POV - the British POV is the one that is known outside ths subcontinent, and that name is the way the damned thing is known everywhere else in the world.

Tomandlu 10:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC) The introduction to an article should give the most familiar names. ( Jvalant 22:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)) Jvalant, I understand your concerns (and largely agree - inserting some, but not all, names for the conflict at the top of the article is inappropriate, irrespective of which "side" such names favour), but please don't describe such edits as "vandalism".

Most Indians know it as the "War of Independence" - "Indian Mutiny" is a biased British POV. They "names" issue is addressed adequately in its section. I don't think "Sepoy Mutiny" was ever used very much. "Indian Mutiny" and "Sepoy Rebellion" are the most commonly used terms. (if used at all, it would probably be lower case, and used to describe individual rebellions by sepoy regiments, rather than the conflict as a whole). To facillitate this, I renamed the "name" section to give it greater clarity in the contents, and - a minor edit - I've emphasised that Sepoy Mutiny is rarely used now as a general term to describe the conflict in the western media. Although the debates encapsulated within them are fascinating, and the discussion productive in terms of producing a good article, I felt that their placement at the head of the article was inappropriate.

I've moved the name and character sections to the end of the article.