Talk:Mangal Pandey

[[Media:[[Media:[1]]]]]

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)

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)

Mangal Pandey, a Bhumihar

Who else could be so brave in India?

A rajput, perhaps? :) Sarayuparin 01:42, 13 November 2006 (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.