Talk:Mangal Pandey

Mangal Pandey in Cat: People of Kolkata?

I removed the categorization "People of Kolkata" from Mangal Pandey, as there is no information supporting him to be either born or living in Kolkata, or being a Bengali. LordGulliverofGalben (talk · contribs) re-inserted the category with the following comment: Ragib, please read the details thoroughly. Mangal Pandey started his act of insurrection at Barrackpore, near what is considered as part of Greater Calcutta. Also there he was hanged..

I'm just curious how this is justified ... the narrative as I can see on the article states Barrackpore is "near" Kolkata. After your comment, I did a little research on the location, and from this map, I can see it is contained in the North 24 Pargana district. I don't see it anywhere close to Kolkata city. What exactly is "Greater calcutta"? Anyway, I think the categorization of "People of Kolkata" is mistaken, because you can't consider people from any city tens or hundreds of miles away from Kolkata, in a separate district, to be part of "People of Kolkata" city. Too much categorization is wrong, and mistaken categorization is even worse. So, LordGulliver, I'd like to hear your arguments in detail about inserting people from other districts into this category. Thanks. --Ragib 22:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

English East India Company

Is it more correct to say "English East India Company" or "British East India Company"? This article is using both terms interchangably, is that correct? - Eric 12:51, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

In 1857 it was the British East India Company, but it was founded in 1600 as the English East India Company (England and Scotland having not yet united) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.146.245 (talk) 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Image:Mangal pandey.jpg

The picture is not tagged. --Dangerous-Boy 06:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletions without consultations

I just noticed that Jacobw removed the sentence "In fact it was this stubborn attitude on the side of the British administrators which worsened the matter, as the later incidences proved." from Mangal Pandey premuably considering it an unsubstantiated POV of a probably biased Indian. I would however contend that it is not a personal POV but just a logical and objective analysis. We can be reasonably sure that the Sepoy Mutiny would not have broken out, at least not to the extent it did, had the British administrators not remained adamant on the use of the greased cartirdges. That the criticism is not personally motivated can be seen from the fact that it is rather Malleson, a contemporary British military officer, who analyses the causes of the rebellion in this manner, see e.g. (Malleson 2005, p. 31): "How the Adjutant-General managed to mislead the Government, and how the Government permitted themselves to be misled on this occasion, seems extraordinary." In fact, Malleson, who published his book "The Indian Mutiny of 1857" in year 1890 and edited before that 6 volumes on the Mutiny narrates many incidences of stubbornness displayed by some British officers and how it contributed to the disaffection that was displayed by the public in general and sepoys in particular later during the Mutiny. I hope people would refrain from directly deleting portions that they consider "biased". Please post them on this discussion page first so as the writer and/or other editors can express their opinion. Thank you. PS: If no serious objections are raised, I would like to roll-back this deletion. --Raj 14:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Unwarranted deletions without consultations

Hi, Raj--

I think you've misunderstood the motivation behind my deletion. This is my fault for not discussing the deletion here first. Usually, I don't think it's necessary to discuss changes on the discussion page, since Wikipedia users who disagree with the changes can just change things back. However, given that I was making a change to a page about a national hero of a country other than my own, I should have realized that any changes would be sensitive matters. My apologies.

In any case, my concern isn't so much that it is an unsubstantiated opinion; it's that it is an opinion of any kind. Saying that somebody made a decision is a historical fact, and is therefore appropriate for Wikipedia. Saying that they are "stubborn" is an opinion. It happens to be an opinion I agree with! But opinions don't belong in Wikipedia, whether or not I agree with them.

Similarly, speculating about what might have happened if the A-G had acted differently doesn't really belong in Wikipedia. Articles should be about what did happen, not about what might have happened.

Of course, given the nature of Wikipedia, if you disagree with me, there's nothing stopping you from changing the article back. However, I'd encourage you to think about ways of including the information in a way that sticks to the facts. For example, I would have no objection to something like, "In such-and-such a book, such-and-such an author cited this decision as an example of the A-Gs stubbornness, and speculated that, had the British indeed switched to ghee at this point, the conflict would have ended immediately." In that case, you would not be stating an opinion; you would be stating the fact that a contemporary observer had advanced that opinion.

Does that distinction make sense? It might sound like I'm splitting hairs, but I do think it's an important distinction.

Best, Jacobw 16:05, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jacobw, Thanks for the quick response and sorry if I created an impression of being offended. I do appreciate your point and will re-formulate the sentence in a more narrative way. I am somewhat new at Wikipedia and feel one should first discuss such issues. But may be you have a point - one should take it sportively and make changes and rechanges in a bit lighter vein. ;-) Thanks once more. --Raj 16:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks for an interesting discussion, and I look forward to seeing your revision. Best, Jacobw 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Cartridges

The article seems to contradict itself - it says that the cartridges were greased with cow/pig, but then also states that the fat used was mutton (sheep).

Also, is it definitively known what, in reality, the grease was made of?

On a more general level, the article seems to be drifting from NPOV - as an example, it seems to feel the need to offer a rebuttal to any evidence that Mangal might not quite have been the hero we want him to be.

Wouldn't it be better to list the pros and cons and let the reader decide on balance? Also, the attribution of names of the rebellion (mutiny to the brits, war of ind. to india) is somewhat oversimplified and basically inaccurate Tomandlu 16:26, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. As it stands now, the article begins by saying it was 'beeswax and linseed oil' and then later refers to the 'fact' that it was cow/pig fat - which was it? Does anyone know? Is it some mixture of the truth? If some unbiased and knowledgeable person could make this clear, the article could be improved drastically. Possibly not the less unbiased person writing below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.145.122.175 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Mangal Pandey caste

Mangal Pandey Was a saryuparin Brahmin family of nagwa village of Ballia. His gotra was savarna.

Savarni was their gotra. Savarna is a distorted pronounciation of savarni. Mainely savarni gotra found in bhumihar brahmin also known as babhan Libertyofms (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Sections that need re-working.

The sections Soldier and sage and Matter of motivation seem to need some serious alterations. They seem to be all based on opinion, and maybe even ripped from a theatre review?

I'm not really qualified to re-work these sections, but maybe someone else should consider taking a look?

Facts about Mangal Pandey box office performance

I wanted to find out how mangal pandey performed against other noteworthy desi/indian movies. While it is stated that Mangal Pandey-The Rising did poorly in box office, the film actually did very well in oversees and did well in India. This fact can be found on a website that has overall stats on all desi/indian movies. For further citations and references go to www.boxofficeindia.com where you can see adjusted and unadjusted (in terms of inflation) top box office desi/indian movies.

66.182.249.211 03:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

mangal pandey strong hit via critics

go to rottentomatoes.com, rating a hit with 88% approval by new york times, variety, etc

65.69.188.137 18:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

== I have edited the line headed The Rising (2005). It previously stated the film was about "his life and times" (MP). However, this is incorrect. The film is about the events which lead up to the mutiny/rising. I trust all who have seen it are in agreement with this. == A. Thornton 5 February 2008.

Age Contradiction

Mangal was born i 1827 (In the infobox), and how come he joined the army in 1849 at the age of 18 ?? Bipinkdas (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edited Bipinkdas (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Bhumihar Brahmin

The M.L.Ahuja source only says "Some people say that Mangal was born in a Bhumihar Brahmin family…" and that's not good enough for a Wikipedia citation, so I have removed the statement that he was. If anyone has access to the Rupa & Co book and can find a better statement in there, please can you let us know what it says and we can update the article if necessary. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:09, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If it is in the source it may be included, not as an absolute but to mention that it is a possibility to be accepted by some, and the source would support this.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 19:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's so weakly sourced as to rely on a "Some people say that..." claim, I really don't see that it's worth mentioning at all (especially as anything caste-related can be very divisive), but if someone wants to add words that do not go above what the source says, I won't object. Neatsfoot (talk) 09:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Here we have a multitude of sources claiming Mangal Pandey was born into a Bhumihar Brahmin family .One such source is www.jcsonline.in/481-484.pdf ,link http://www.jcsonline.in/481-484.pdf. rahila 04:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• But this material (published in an Indian journal dated Jan-March 2015) appears to be a word for word copy of the present Wikipedia article, as prepared by a number of Wiki-contributors over several years prior to that date! Buistr (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Mangal pandey is Bhumihar family of Brahmin varna . Yes he was Brahmin varna of Bhumihar Caste . Those who don't know Bhumihar properly , they simply ignore sorry , But they don't know so many things , it doesn't mean that its not exist.

So change Bhumihar Brahmin family . It is proper way to describe Pandit4580 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Stop demanding and start reading from the top of this section. We have enough problems with Bhumihar caste warriors/glorifiers at other articles without stirring it up here also. Just because Bhumihar has been placed on 500/30 restrictions does not mean people should export the disruption elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Just go to their birthplace and know about him. He was Bhumihar brahmin. Many pandey from his birthplace known as Bhumihar brahmin. Whats problem being a Bhumihar brahmin. Everyone knows bengal regiment recruits many Bhumihar brahmin that time. Baliya have majority of pandey having Bhumihar brahmin status. Libertyofms (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2017

He was born in Bhumihaar Family. Anubhav9415 (talk) 10:26, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see the section immediately above this one. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have just reverted the Bhumihar claim yet again, pending a quote from the source that the acceptor claimed supported the statement and information regarding the expertise of the writers of that source. In any event, we would not be able to state it quite so certainly, as per previous discussions on this talk page and at Talk:Bhumihar. THe acceptor of the edit has been notified and failed to come up with the requested quote. - Sitush (talk) 17:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: As I had mentioned on my talk page the line ("one account claims that Mangal Pandey was born in a Bhumihar Brahmian family") was mentioned in the cited source which has further been cited by Singh in Encyclopaedia Of Indian War Of Independence (1857-1947) (2009). --Tamravidhir (talk)

One account is not worth mentioning but in any event I'm still waiting for (a) the quote and (b) the expertise. We don't do caste glorification. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Per the allegations of violation of NPOV on my talk page, I have chosen to clear out my position by disclosing the source from where I sourced the information I had added in the article. With regards to it's reversion or if it should be in the article/not I choose to have nothing to do with it. I leave it on other editors and faith in consensus. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Still need the quote. - Sitush (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Provided it already. Please read: "one account claims that Mangal Pandey was born in a Bhumihar Brahmian family" sourced from Singh in Encyclopaedia Of Indian War Of Independence (1857-1947) (2009) which cites Misra, Amaresh (2005), cited in the article. --Tamravidhir (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Sigh; am actually reading this discussion after having reverted you which explains the edit-sum, which might seem misleading to you. At any case, please insert the cite, right after the completion of sentence, that is sourced to it. When performing an integrity check, we don't screen all references of an article.

Now, are we having a dearth of scholarly sources to cite stuff coming out of street-presses and non-academic conspiracy theorists?

Here is what Wagner notes 'bout Amaresh Mishra:-

Savarkar’s nationalist conspiracy theory has proven resilient to the passing of time, and it has recently been resurrected by the journalist Amaresh Misra, who has written extensively on 1857 ..... Writing the history of 1857 becomes the occasion for Misra to reinvent the history of modern India according to his own ideals .... In their attempt to reappropriate the history of 1857, to reclaim Indian history for Indian audiences, writers like V. D. Savarkar and Amaresh Misra have achieved little more than the perpetuation of the most staid tropes and crassest stereotypes of colonial historiography. This may provide India with a pantheon of proto-nationalist revolutionary heroes, amongst whom Mangal Pandey assumes the seat of honour, but this type of anachronistic hagiography pays a disservice to history.

— Kim Wagner

∯WBG^converse 18:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: My, my. The integrity of such pantheon of authors/journalists is inherently flawed, given their masquerading as reliable sources while engaging in the construction of manufactured memories to feed into political ploys; absolutely crass. I had not known this about the said author and have no personal knowledge about the history of Bhumihars/their 'Sanskritisation' and upward social mobility. I attempted the edit per said source which per your explanation is a vehicle of propagating the right wing Hindu nationalist idea. Thanks a lot for breaking this down for me. My personal knowledge about the reliability of such source stands to be nil and I shall draw caution with such edits or, at the least, ask for a review of such sources by peers before adding them to the article. --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Could you also drop by the name of Mukherjee's work here? --Tamravidhir (talk) 04:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency in trial report

"Pandey recovered and was brought to trial less than a week later. When asked whether he had been under the influence of any substances, he stated steadfastly that he had mutinied on his own accord and that no other person had played any part in encouraging him." Several lines later: "At his court-martial, he stated that he had been taking bhang and opium, and was not conscious of his actions on 29 March." I wasn't there, so I will refrain from expressing an opinion. But the above statements clearly do not match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.56.93.230 (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

DOB of Mangal Pandey

Mangal Pandey DOB is January 30,1831. It is clarified by Uttar Pradesh government, I request Wikipedia to correct the information. Harshkr6147 (talk) 04:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Please see WP:V and WP:NPOV. We need an actual source, and if reliable sources differ then we show all versions. Saying "clarified by Uttar Pradesh government" is meaningless, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

July 19, 1827

https://learn.culturalindia.net/mangal-pandey.html

https://www.oneindia.com/feature/biography-mangal-pandey-the-harbinger-of-revolution-2512180.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/fyi/story/mangal-pandey-1857-indian-rebellion-birth-anniversary-1025139-2017-07-19

We do have a few saying we are wrong (well actually saying the PM of Utter Pradesh is saying we are wrong, so they are not putting it in their words), and 200+ years of history saying otherwise.Slatersteven (talk)

So we may have an issue of wp:undue or wp:fringe, one politician saying something.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Britannica source currently tagged in the opening line of the article says "(born July 19, 1827, Akbarpur, India—died April 8, 1857, Barrackpore)" so why has the birth date been freely changed to 30 Jan 1831 using this source? To be fair, the original date of 19 July 1927 was never sourced and it might be worth asking the originator where they got that date from in the first place. The three sources above all state 19 July 1927 but as none of them look particularly RS it's possible they could have just picked up the info from Wikipedia so we then end up with a self reference. On the other side of the argument, it is of course feasible that the chief minister of Uttar Pradesh might be wrong, so we must not use him as a reliable source, how can he be so sure? Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
→ P.S. my edit summary for this should have read: "current Britannica source does NOT state dob 30 Jan 1831"

User:Raj.Tiwari first added 19 July 1827 as the dob (without providing a source) in this diff on 23 March 2006. As that was 15 years ago, I would be willing to bet that any non-RS source we can find out there has picked the date up from our wiki. As there is so much uncertainty about this, might I suggest that we revert to just providing his death date as in this old version? Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep, might be best as it seems unclear. But those were only three sample sources, there were others.Slatersteven (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As to Britannica, my mistake, I forgot to change the birth date as well when adding it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Another sources 19th July Published 1900 https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Freedom_Struggle_of_1857/fms4CgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Mangal+Pandey+was+born&pg=PT33&printsec=frontcover

There were others, but only as snippet views, note this was only a book search. As I said this has been regarded as a fact for over 100 years.Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think until we have a definitive source we leave it out.Slatersteven (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This is unlikely a 1900 source. It seems to be an ebook-only publication by a modern author; the 1900 date is likely a substitute for an unknown publication date. Ankry (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

A 2005 source for this date can be found here: https://www.tribuneindia.com/2005/20050814/spectrum/book10.htm and, I think, it can be used as a source for Wikipedia as the article adit adding this date was newer. Ankry (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Your source says "presumably", which means they do not in fact know. I think it is best to leave out what is a guess.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)