Talk:Mandalay (poem)/Archive 1

[Untitled]

I have recently visited Myanmar and recalled Kipling's poem, which I learned as a song. Aspects of the poem puzzle me greatly. If the Moulmein Pagoda is in the old capital of Moulmein ( now Maulamyaing) then looking to the sea would be looking to the west and the Gulf of Martaban. However the first line clearly states "looking eastward to the sea". From Moulmein the dawn would appear from eastern Myanmar and beyond in Thailand and not "come up like thunder outer China crost the bay". And kissing Buddha's feet is not part of Burmese Buddhist practice although removing one's shoes in every temple remains current. Am I being too literal? Or are there meanings that elude me? MJMcI 05:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This poem is a part of family tradition for me. I have never heard the "Eastward to the Sea" version of the first line, although both of the links have it as such. I have a framed copy of the poem on the wall above me and the first line reads "By the old Moulmein pagoda lookin lazy at the sea". When I googled the poem I found the link below. I do not know whether one of the links is an error and the Wiki-version relied upon it. Also see the article at Mawlamyine.

http://raysweb.net/poems/mandalay/mandalay.html

Also, I would note that the poem discribes being on the "road to Mandalay" from Rangoon (Yangon). If one were headed north to Mandalay one could still see the dawn come up like thunder out of china cross the bay.--Counsel 05:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The geographical references grammatically derive not from Moulmein, the pagoda, Burma, or the maiden; they derive from the subject of the sentence. That subject "There is" is abstract; so it may be the writer or the reader, both presumably in Europe, longing for the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.108.27.26 (talk) 11:34, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

More from MJMcI

Thank you Counsel for your comments. But I have done some more research in the past two weeks and I now think that both lines appear in the poem. "By the old Moulmein Pagoda lookin' eastward to the sea" is the first line and " ... looking lazy at the sea" is a line in the last chorus. This is certainly what I remember learning 50 years ago. From Moulmein the sea is to the west.

In a 2003 Signet Classics reissue edition of Barrack-room Ballads Andrew Lycett suggests that Kipling's geography was a bit wobbly. And on this aspect I agree with him.

On the line about "China 'crost the bay" Lycett points out that India is across the bay. But the full line is "And the dawn comes up like thunder outta China 'crost the bay". India is to the west of Myanmar so the dawn would not have been coming up out of India or anywhere else to the west. And if you were as far north as Mandalay the dawn could come up out of China but it would not be seen across any bay.

So I remain puzzled by the entire ballad as even the commentators seem to have no accurate geographical perspective. MJMcI 11:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well Mandalay is in centeral Burma, so it is possible that a road connecting Mawlamyine (Moulmein) and Mandalay could loop around the Andaman Sea, part of which creats a nook bordering Mon, Bago, and Yangoon. This finger of the Sea could be seen as a bay, especailly between Bago and Mon provinces. So that makes some sence. Aufs klo 02:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the feeling that the narrator (i.e. the retired soldier) is supposed to be uneducated and lower class (note all the dropped h's and words like "wot" "plucky lot" etc), and the poor geography, I fell, is just part of that - he's a down-on-his-luck veteran who has not prospered with his return to Britain and has come to feel unrealistically nostalgic for the service "where the best is like the worst" (which wasn't actually nearly as pleasent as he presents it, note the line "With our sick beneath the awnings"). Given that Kipling was born in India, I struggle to believe that he was actually confused about the geography.

121.98.71.122 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Flying fishes

What about the flying fish? Isn't that supposed to be a marine type of fish, as in "ocean"? So why would it be on "the road to Mandalay" (a city which is inland)? Methinks old Kipling's memory got a bit geography challenged. — Rickyrab | Talk 00:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything in the article is clear, except its subject

"Mandalay is a famous poem by Rudyard Kipling..."

What is it famous for? And what is it about, besides mentioning the location Mandalay? These are the things that the article should explain in the first place. Instead, it doesn't explain them anywhere, and it starts with a section on film references. Is the poem famous for having been referenced in films <sarcasm>? Not good. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"Borisgate"

To try and stave off the recent edit war on this article, can somebody explain the importance of the Boris Johnson incident cited to The Guardian? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Ritchie. Yes, I included the following material, which was reverted multiple times by an IP:

The British foreign secretary Boris Johnson recited part of the poem inside the Shwedagon Pagoda, Yangon, during an official visit to Myanmar in January 2017. Just as he was reaching the lines about the Buddha ("Bloomin’ idol made o’ mud/ Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd"), the British ambassador Andrew Patrick leaned over and said, "You’re on mic. Probably not a good idea..."

Mr Johnson is the British Foreign Secretary and the incident occurred during an official visit, which on its own suggests that the information is of interest, certainly both to bilateral relations between the UK and Myanmar, as well as to the history of this particular poem (I stress "of interest", rather than "of importance": an encyclopaedia is full of items of interest that lack importance). The story is being reported in sources other The Guardian (and Channel 4), not all WP:RSs, admittedly, but ones that suggest that this is not merely a piece of information of partisan interest to the left (eg The Independent, Le Parisien, The Sun, the Daily Mail). Ericoides (talk) 10:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Not worth including in the article on a poem, is it? Did it lead to a major conflict? A diplomatic incident? A reinterpretation of the poem? It's not relevant. EddieHugh (talk) 21:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You're setting very high standards for what should or should not be included in articles about poems, and if you applied them consistently you'd need to remove a great deal of content... Furthermore, it is of self-evident relevance to our readers. Over 21,000 people visited the page on 30 September 2017, compared with 3,000 for the entire month from 10 Aug to 10 Sept. Ericoides (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't know that other poetry articles mentioned interrupted recitations or inappropriate recitations. I assume that you are referring to GA- or FA-standard ones; which articles are they? You're confusing cause and effect with the viewing figures: (presumably) people came to this poetry page because the poem was mentioned in the media, not because they wanted to read about an incident that they'd already read about in the media. Unless something actually happens because of what Johnson did, its presence in an article on poetry is barely trivia. EddieHugh (talk) 12:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"I didn't know that other poetry articles mentioned interrupted recitations or inappropriate recitations": Are you suggesting that something can only be included if it has happened before in another context? Are we not to include Coleridge being interrupted in his writing of Kubla Khan because no other Romantic poet was interrupted by a person from Porlock? Or just interrupted full-stop? Who draws the line? I don't see the logic behind what you argue here, although I do take your point re cause and effect. That said, Johnson is British foreign secretary and this reading has been reported in multiple RSs, giving it a certain notability. I agree it's not the shooting of JFK, but then no one was suggesting it was. In a hundred years I am sure I would find it interesting, for many reasons, political, biographical, colonial, &c. Perhaps I am alone in this. Ericoides (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You commented that "you'd need to remove a great deal of content" from poem articles, so I thought you had examples of (high quality) articles that include similar things. A poet being interrupted in the act of writing tells the reader something about how a work was created – that's relevant to an article about that poem. A politician being interrupted while muttering a few lines more than a century later... not relevant. EddieHugh (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with the view of EddieHugh that this incident is not worth including. However, I do think the edit made by Ericoides as it stood before removal rather missed the key point which I suspect is actually quite relevant to the article: namely, that of the poem's apparent inappropriateness in modern-day Burma/Myanmar, and that sensitivity to the poem's content (reflecting, as it does, Britain's colonial past and attitude to a foreign religion and culture) is rather effectively demonstrated by this somewhat high profile, political near faux-pas by a UK Foreign Secretary. Perhaps an alternative wording of this section and additional references or quotes could be put forward, agreeable to all? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. An account of how the poem is regarded now/in more recent times/from different perspectives would benefit the article, but that wouldn't need to be based on this recent (non-)story. EddieHugh (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not so sure - the "non-story" as you call it does actually demonstrate how a modern, prominent political figure can, by very nearly quoting offensive parts of Kipling's poem, cause upset and media interest around the world. That's some poem. I agree that it's the impact of the poem that's significant here, not what one politician got up to when quoting it. If you can find better reliable sources to demonstrate the poem's perception and impact in the modern world, feel free to do so. But in the meantime, the content seems valid to me and should be reinserted - an Ambassador had to step in to avoid embarasment being caused, so it just needs tweaking here to put emphasis on the poem's impact, and less on the person about to recite it. (After all, some people might assert that Mr Kipling makes "exceeding good poems"!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

For those who are still interested and live outside of the U.K. the program is now available on those parts of the internet that provide links to copyrighted material whilst pretending they are upstanding and don`t make money through advertising and funnelling from your IP. The matter that was so important in context is a trifle and the program in my opinion was an edited agenda painting of what Ch4 wanted rather than truth or reality. Did he mumble the poem yes, but admittedly when driving through Shanghai I have mumbled Spike Milligan verse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.165.51.163 (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

On your return to King Charles Street, perhaps you'll let us know how you got on after being interrupted by the British ambassador. Ericoides (talk) 05:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It has been some time since comments were last made about text inserted and then removed from this article. I would like to wrap this up and find a way forward with a rough consensus for a suitable form of words, addressing concerns of all editors here. I am also pinging @Ritchie333: who neutrally questioned the matter.

To summarise: An edit was made which added a widely-reported incident in which a UK politician was about to quote parts of Kipling's poem (potentially very insulting) in a holy temple in Burma (Myanmar), but was stopped just in time by his ambassador. Others felt this was irrelevant to the poem and removed it, though it was later reinserted, and so forth. To avoid an edit war, the discussion rightly came to this page. I dropped by whilst doing anti-vandal patrolling, but am not wholly uninvolved as I did subsequently express an opinion here that the story could be relevant to the poem. I suggested if it were to be retained, the focus must be on the poem and its context, not on some visiting politician. There was some acceptance of this proposal by the concerned editor, so new content was needed to show examples of the poem's cultural and political significance, and its relevance to the modern day.

I have done some research, and offer the following new section which I hope editors will find acceptable. It tries to give two clear and neutrally-worded examples of the current relevance of the poem to the political situation within Burma, and not focus on what some see as irrelevant visiting politicians. I realise other editors with a lot more understanding of English literature and of Kipling's work and legacy could easily improve the worth of the whole article, but that's beyond my ability to contribute to. Unless there is still really genuine concern I propose to insert the section below into the article and hope editors will respect my good faith attempt to resolve the matter to everyone's satisfaction and avoid any future edit warring.

START OF PROPOSED TEXT

Modern-day relevance

Whilst Kipling's poem is recognised as romanticising a 19th century colonial period, it nevertheless still retains strong political resonance within Burma (now Myanmar) in modern times. For example, in 1988, after the pro-democracy uprising led by opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's military leaders attempted to use Kipling's poem to undermine her. They compared Suu Kyi to the 'unpatriotic' Burmese girl in 'Mandalay' who rejected her compatriots and (therefore by suggestion) her own country because of Suu Kyi's marriage in 1972 to a British academic (Michael Aris), saying this disqualified her from being able to lead Burma. It should be noted that Suu Kyi regarded Kipling sufficiently highly that not only was an extract from 'Mandalay' read out at her wedding, but she also named her second son 'Kim'.

In 2017, continuing sensitivity to elements of the poem's colonial referencing were exemplified when a visiting UK Foreign Secretary almost caused political embarrassment whilst reciting an extract from 'Mandalay' within the country's most sacred temple of Shwedagon Pagoda in Yangon. Just before reaching the lines about the Buddha ("Bloomin’ idol made o’ mud/ Wot they called the Great Gawd Budd"), the British ambassador had to halt him, saying "You’re on mic. Probably not a good idea..."

END OF PROPOSED TEXT Nick Moyes (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts on this. I agree with the principle of adding an update on how the poem is regarded now/recently. Unfortunately, however, the sources I've seen (including the ones that you provide) over-reach, meaning that better ones are needed. The Selth article is a good find, but his only source on the Aung San Suu Kyi bit is the Steinberg book that he quotes: "They [the military] cite the marriage of Aung San Suu Kyi to a British academic, Michael Aris, as disqualifying her from leading the country. This colonial issue, as exemplified in Rudyard Kipling's poem 'The Road to Mandalay' [...] thus continues today." The problem is that "as exemplified in" is far from evidence that the military used this poem specifically. It's plausible that the poem was used in that way, but these two sources are insufficient; I'm trying to find sources that explicitly state it was.

On your proposed second paragraph: here, some of the sources (deliberately, I imagine) exaggerate. In the video (documentary) the last line Johnson's shown reciting before the ambassador's "not appropriate" is "The wind is in the palm trees, the temple bells they say". Look at the complete poem: that line is the third in the poem; the "Bloomin' idol..." part doesn't appear in the same stanza... it's a dozen lines later. Your proposed "Just before reaching the lines about the Buddha ('Bloomin' idol..." thus repeats the media exaggeration in picking out the worst-looking line from the poem, even when he was nowhere near those lines (and he wasn't even trying to recite the whole thing, as the video makes clear). In summary, there should be a "Modern-day relevance" / "Attitudes towards the poem" section, but it needs sources that are both accurate and, preferably, not trying to make a political point. (This is a criticism of the sources, not of you.) EddieHugh (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've spent the time since my last post trying, unsuccessfully, to find a stronger source for the Aung San Suu Kyi-based paragraph. Everything leads back to the same two sources; it's one of the difficulties in searching online for things that pre-date the internet era. The claim/assertion/statement has been published several times by reputable organisations, though, so I suggest adding the common hedge of who said it. "Academic Andrew Selth wrote that..." can appear somewhere, thereby attributing the whole thing to him. EddieHugh (talk) 12:44, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you - this sounds like a good compromise and one i would have suggesred had I not been ill and unable to get to my main PC. Selth is clearly a serious academic and specialist on Burma (19+ books and papers) and we should never think we should only use online materials. I'll pop back in a week or so and check out how these paragraphs are them looking, and add any extra thoughts, if needs be. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Music and Cultural Impact

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why there are two subsections on 'Music' in this article? It would be good to get them merged together.

Even more useful would be for a new section with reliable sources to be inserted to demonstrate the poems cultural impact. How did it affected people's perceptions of Burma at the time it was written? And how has that changed in post-colonial times, especially with the perceived current rise of Buddhist nationalism. Does the poem have and relevance, impact, or cause upset in today's world? Discuss. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mandalay (poem)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Fish and karate (talk · contribs) 10:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Will review this over the the next 2-3 days, this is one of my favourite poems. Added template below. A ping for Chiswick Chap so he knows where to look. Fish+Karate 14:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Updated Fish+Karate 08:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking this on. I will action comments promptly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Adequately summarizes article? Y
  • Although if there are additions to the article this may need revisiting.

• All facts in lead referenced in article somewhere? Y
  • "The poem became his best-known" - that's one person's opinion quoted as fact. If it's staying in, it at least needs a modifier noting that this was "at the time", as the reference provided for this is a quote from 1890. If you were to ask now what Kipling's best known poem was, it wouldn't be Mandalay.
    • Removed. Y Cheers

• On that note, the reference used for the above claim ([1] also says the poem was from 1890. The article says it was written in 1890. The lead says it was first published in 1892. I can certainly imagine a long gap between writing and publication, but the Kipling Society ([2] says it was first published in the Scots Observer on 21st June 1890. It was first collected in a book of Kipling's works in 1892.

Fixed, and used refs. Y Thanks.

• "The protagonist is a Cockney working-class soldier, back in grey restrictive London, recalling the time he felt free and had a Burmese girlfriend, now unattainably far away." The lead should summarise the article. This is not in the body of the article, and so is also unreferenced. Don't remove it from the lead, it's interesting; instead expand on it in the body of the article and reference it.

This is based on Jack in the body; I've repeated the ref. Y Thanks

• "was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, who objected however to its muddled geography" Again, where is this in the main article? The only mention of the bad geography in the main article is from a 2003 piece, by David Gilmour. Not a contemporary of Kipling. As above, rather than remove it, it would be nice to be able to expand on this in the main article and provide an appropriate reference.

This was from Selth; I've extended the Selth coverage in the body and repeated the ref for clarity. Y Thanks

Body of article

Well written

• Is the prose clear and concise? Y
  • "and was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, who objected however to its muddled geography" - that's a muddled sentence. How about "and was admired by Kipling's contemporaries, despite some objecting to its muddled geography"

reworded. Y

• Is the spelling and grammar correct? Y

• • "During the Third Anglo-Burmese War of 1885 9,000" needs a comma between 1885 and 9,000
    • Fixed. If there are any more small formatting errors, feel free to fix 'em directly, it's easier. Y and will do - Suggestion the tenses were muddled in the critical discussion so have harmonized them to past tense (said, wrote, commented), if you want them all to be active (says, writes, comments) then by all means change them but change them all, so it's consistently done.

That's fine either way.

• • "was written in March or April 1890" - "was written between March and April 1890" - for all we know, he started writing it on 28 March and finished on 3 April
    • Fixed. Y Ta

• Does it comply with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation? Y
  • In the romanticism section, as the key word of Hamilton's view on the musicality of the lyrics is its aspect of 'minstrelsy' (which really should be pipe linked to Minstrel show) is the N-word essential? Suspect the reader will find it jarring.
    • Removed, and wikilinked. Y thanks

Verifiable with no original research

• Does it contain a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline? Y
• Are all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines? Y

• Does it contain no original research? Y
  • That distinctive phrase "exotic erotica" in the lead is referenced to a 2017 Guardian article by Ian Jack ([3]) but Jack doesn't use that phrasing (as quoted in the For subsection, he says "race, class, power, gender, the erotic, the exotic and what anthropologists and historians call “colonial desire”"). But that exact phrase does appear in another 2017 article about Mandalay, an interview with Andrew Selth written slightly earlier that year ([4]), by Michael Wesley for New Mandala. I think this needs to be referenced, and Suggestion you may wish to consider using Wesley's piece as a source to expand some other bits of the article too, it's got some good stuff about the poem.

Wesley is already used and cited in other parts of the article, including right by that phrase in the body. Have repeated the ref by the phrase in the lead.

Aha, I was looking for the original article, not the reprint, the ANU link you're using for Wesley says at the bottom "This article is was first published in New Mandala". Perhaps use the original source and not the reprint? Apologies, though.

Oh I see. Updated citation to the New Mandala URL and publisher.

• Does it contain copyright violations or plagiarism? Y
  • Checked with references manually, and used the earwig tool. Quotes are suitably quoted and attributed. No issues found other than the one just above.

Broad in its coverage

• Does it address the main aspects of the topic? Y
  • One of the most distinctive things about the poem is the 'voice' it's written in, using Cockney slang and so on, the article doesn't really mention this. Y Cheers

The poem's "voice" is discussed in #A common touch and cited to Jack.

• • There's nothing in the body of the article about how the poem was released (ie, published in the Scotsman in 1890, and then first collected in Barrack Room Ballads in 1892. There's a sentence in the lead but this isn't expanding on anything in the main article. No mention of which of Kipling's collections included the poem (there's a list here) Y Cheers

Done.

• Does it stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)? Y

Neutral

• Does it represent viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each? Y
  • No issues

Stable

• Does the article change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute? Y
  • No issues

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

• Is media tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content? Y
  • All images in the article (bar one) are pre-1923 and are tagged appropriately. The other one is cc-by-sa-3.0, also fine.

• Is media relevant to the topic, with suitable captions? Y
  • That palm tree image is pointless. Also not sure about the relevance of the image of a music hall. It's like having a picture of a boot (also mentioned in the poem) and a radio (also a way the poem has been presented publicly). Perhaps remove those and add an image of Kipling? There's quite a few to choose from at Commons:Category:Rudyard_Kipling. Rest seem relevant.
    • Removed those images and added one of Kipling at that age. Y thanks

Observations

All concerns met, thank you Chiswick Chap for responding so promptly. I am happy to pass this article as a Good Article. Fish+Karate 12:52, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for the careful and thorough review, which has helped to sharpen up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)