Talk:Gunga Din

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gunga Din article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Poetry High‑importance

	Poetry portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comments from 2006

It seems to me that this article should be split into two;
Gunga Din -- the default article, about the Rudyard Kipling poem.
and
Gunga Din (film) -- an article about the RKO film.

--HobbesPDX 20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think that this movie was even worth watching What about yall.

I thought it was okay as long as you didn't expect it to stick closely to the poem

I Loved this movie back in the day. So neutrality of article is disputed because you do not like the movie? I don't get it. There. Removed Neutrality Disputed tag.

Wasn't there the Bold textGunga Diner from Watchmen

The poem contains non-English words which could use some explanation: bhisti, hitherao, Panee lao, juldee, dooli Bastie 15:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author

Intro note currently notes an Iranian author using Gunga Din as a pen name, named Ali Mirdrekvandi. It's a red link and he gets 206 Google hits including Wikipedia mirrors of this article. I'll remove the intro note; feel free to re-add if the 206-hits guy is notable. Tempshill 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! It's a new age, all right, but if a fella can publish a book, he *deserves* a mention somewhere under each of his own noms de plume, doesn't he? People achieve instant celebrity by mugging for a digital camera, uttering a four-letter word (inappropriately) in Ireland, or muffing a line of The Star-Spangled Banner. Book paper, at least, costs actual money. Unfree (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musical instruments

"The name 'Gunga Din' is sarcastically used[citation needed] in the musical instrument world;" -- if this is original reporting, surely no citation is needed? I can vouch for the term being used, at least in the UK. It would also be used to criticize a performance, "I sounded like Gunga Din up there." --Rfsmit 17:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this to Talk: tagged as "cite needed" since Feb 2007: "The name "Gunga Din" is sometimes used in the musical instrument world; brass instruments, particularly bugles, of low or questionable quality produced in India are often called "Gunga Din" horns, as well as "junkers", or more appropriately, "wall-hangers". - Please cite correctly if replaced. Sorry, Rfsmit, your personal testimony is not an acceptable source per WP:SOURCE. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 03:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slang deserves scholarly study, but anybody hearing it probably has a suspicion it is such, so perhaps this should be "filed" under "Gunga Din (slang)" or, by extension, "Gunga Din (musicians' slang)". Or, not. Is there "Musicians' slang (politically incorrect)" article yet? Unfree (talk) 07:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article emphasis & relevance

This article, as written, is not about the poem - it's about the influences by and references to the poem in US contemporary culture.

It seems that wiki now confuses US pop culture with actual commentary and comment on the subject being discussed - never mind eh, kids? you don't need to know anything about Gunga Din except some band from somewheresville, Kentucky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.147.186 (talk) 01:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This poem is misrepresented in the opening paragraph. The poem does not celebrate "the virtues of a non-European." The poem portrays Gunga Din as using his position as water carrier to hold power over his ostensible masters. The narrator ironically notes that Gunga Din "was white, clear white, inside" for treating men sadistically when they were at his mercy. As the narrator lay injured, Gunga Din gave him a drink of swamp water, and the narrator mused that they would meet again in Hell.Vvevo (talk) 09:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In continuation of what Vvevo wrote I would like to question the line stating that "Gunga Din" is in contrast to "White Man's Burden". They reflect two aspects of the same imperialistic Anglo-Indian view upon the Constitutive Other. Scheindk (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Man's Burden was not about India, but rather the USA in its new role as colonial master.Royalcourtier (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Racism?!

"Like several Kipling poems, it celebrates the virtues of a non-European while revealing the racism[?] of a colonial infantryman..."

I'm sorry, but even if I'm breaking all the rules here, I simply must contest such a statement! There wasn't any such thing as what we now know as "racism" in the infantryman's mind, not a trace of it. He had no concept of prejudice against the members of that sister race, "the heathens" -- those whom he considered, quite morally and honorably, to be decent, quite admirable members of an exotic clan. The notion that all Homo sapiens might share an equal "pedigree" was as inconceivable an idea to him as imagining him himself to be the equal of a lord, a peer of the realm! How could he possibly have fathomed, much less credited, such a thought? He, like all Englishmen, good or bad, sane or mad, enlightened or benighted, considered his wealthy, well-established, anti-papist, Christian, invincible, mercantile world empire to be quite perfectly right, and ALL others unfortunately misguided and equally unfortunately, quite destitute; in fact, perishing in their millions, ten million in one year, not once, but with every periodic famine, of starvation and disease. This is all quite factual and worthy of profound pity, even to us third-millennium "egalitarian" capitalists. He was up to his neck in problem-solving for a people he couldn't imagine befriending, only pitying. He lived in a cloud of strictly, strongly, *class-minded* ideals, those of his country's finest philosophers, theologians, poets, statesmen, political leaders, etc. England's finest, most honorable, and most brilliant, including, even, the radical, notoriously free thinking Darwin. Poor, helpless heathens were dropping like flies all around him, not from anything England (that proudest and most unquestionably glorious of empires!) was doing, but from sheer penury. He had no inkling that White supremacy could be questioned, much less erroneous. Of course according to his upbringing, knowledge, and general outlook on the world at large and its peoples, the heathens were inferior to him, as to all Caucasians, and probably many unknown races on his imaginary scale of superiority, but he was by no means against them; he was for them! The inferiority of the dear heathens was to him a source of dreadful, but incorrigible pain. Would that Queen Victoria, their mutual empress, and all of her ministers, wealth, and power could correct them and their evils, and convert them all to Christ, health, wealth, and glory! Believe me, that is not prejudice in the least. Haven't you read "The White Man's Burden"? Do you imagine the British were trying, or wanted, to harm India? They were helping the people of the subcontinent in full awareness of, and, out of pious duty, in spite of, the backlash of misunderstanding, ingratitude, bitterness, and resentment, even warfare, it was likely to arouse among their "inferiors". (Tangentially, I'm going to fix "several Kipling" right now.) Unfree (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the most thoughtful discussion that I have read on Wikipedia. It gives an interesting perspective on the British mind of the time, and it really has a ring of truth to it.Franklinjefferson (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see it's been changed, but it still makes the very incorrect statement that White Man's Burden is, by contrast, racist. A common mistake, despite its text clearly being thoroughly pro-Indian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.149.81 (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd

I wonder whether anybody shares my hunch that "Gawd" was a way of saying what sort of mood it was uttered in, and more particularly, that it was a pronunciation well understood by the English audience, and by many fewer Americans, to be the way upper-class priests pronounced "God" in their loftiest accent, the one they put on and off with their vestments. Why would he be in such a mood? (Think.) Unfree (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think more likely to be how a Londoner would say it. Much of the "dialect" seems to be London based (188.146.184.157 (talk) 12:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

It is how 'God' is pronounced in Cockney English and many other southern English working class accents of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It sounds like 'Gord' in the name Gordon (given name). --Ef80 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

I think reference should be made to the Neil Diamond 1970 song, 'Done Too Soon', which contains this memorable juxtaposition, 'Ho Chi Minh Gunga Din'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdmario (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion requested

I believe that the full text of the poem should be included in wikipedia, others do not. Other Poems include the full text, articles on artwork include reproduction of the pieces, articles on songs have lyrics, and wiki has become a facebook of pop culture. This Poem's text should be included.Geeperzcreeperz 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the full text is necessary. It is in Wikisource, which is linked. Figureofnine (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Whether or not the text of the poem is removed, you need better sourcing related directly to the poem, its background, etc. Too much of this article deals with modern-day trivia. Figureofnine (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

It seems unnecessary to me to include the entire poem in the article, especially considering it is available elsewhere. Looking at other poem articles (such as any in Category:1892 poems, of which this article is a member), none of them list the whole poem. For consistency's sake, I would say the poem should be removed from the article. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)—SnottyWong ^gab 20:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One practical problem the editors of this article face is that there isn't much left after you take out the poem. But there must be scads of resources available concerning this famous poem. Figureofnine (talk) 20:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an article is a stub doesn't mean we need to fill it up with inappropriate information. If more appropriate and sourced information is available, it can be added. If no more information is available, then perhaps this article should be merged somewhere. SnottyWong ^confabulate 20:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you. The poem doesn't belong here, as I said earlier. But I was commenting generally, as before, at the lack of particularly good content in the article. Figureofnine (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors may be interested in looking at WP:NOFULLTEXT. Mildly Mad^T_C 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update: lol, it would appear that this very article is cited in that page as being a good example of an article that only quotes the necessary part of the poem. I guess that's as good of reason as any to change it back :-) Mildly Mad^T_C 22:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GENTLEMEN, I CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THE PAGES: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poetry#Individual_poems and the supporting page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:L%26P I assert that you are in fact vandalizing a project page. 23:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeperzcreeperz (talk • contribs)

There seems no doubt at all that the full poem should not be quoted. The poetry project, WP:NOFULLTEXT, Wikipedia:Quotations, Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources and WP:NOTMIRROR seem very clear. There is no need for it here as it is easily found in Wikiquote and on the net. If it brings the article down to a stub, that's fine. I can't see what the argument could be for inclusion. A sonnet is a short poem, this is not. Spanglej (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:WikiProject Poetry#Individual poems allows for the full text of poems that are "quite short". This poem is longer than "quite short", as it takes up my entire screen and I need to scroll down to see the entire thing. Second of all, WP:L&P is an inactive page. It is not a guideline or a policy. It is (in your words, on my talk page) "stale". There are, however, plenty of relevant, active guidelines and policies which say that full text should not be included (see Spanglej's comments above). I assert that you are being quite disruptive. SnottyWong ^chat 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not disruptive on this page, just wrong. However, the edit warring over it by the IP/user who keeps adding the text must stop. I've left a note at the talk page of the IP editor. Figureofnine (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Why does Gungadin redirect to the film and not here? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English soldiers inferior?

The statement that the "English soldiers who order Din around and beat him for not bringing them water fast enough are presented as being callous and shallow, and ultimately inferior to him" is not correct, for several reasons. Firstly it is British not English soldiers; secondly the poem refers to one soldier not multiple; thirdly the poem does not represent the soldier as callous and shallow, but perhaps as callous.????

Origin of Gunga Din - earlier incarnation

Two items here state that Gunga Din (or Deen) had an earlier literary incarnation by others before Kipling used the name in his poem:

THE KIPLING JOURNAL 3

The Original Gunga Deen

by LIEUT.-GENERAL SIR GEORGE MacMUNN

http://www.kiplingjournal.com/textfiles/KJ066.txt

AND

Arthur Lawrence, Benjamin William Findon. "Sir Arthur Sullivan: life-story, letters, and reminiscences" (London : J. Bowden, 1899), p.363

"He [E. A. P. Hobday] has also written some songs (My bearer, Gungadeen for instance)"

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/50711514/edmund-arthur_ponsonby-hobday — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]