Talk:Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam

Jamalabad fort, way to Srirangapatnam????

In the article it is mentioned that Jamalabad fort steps was the route the Mangalorean Catholics had travel on their way to Srirangapatnam. How can this be possible when those steps lead to the hill top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No! Jamalabad Fort was a waiting point. There was a camp in the area. Those steps do not lead to Seringapatam. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Starting review. 16:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is quite a long document, but it appears to be well referenced and well illustrated. I will therefore go through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a few days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Initial comments

This is quite a long document, but it appears to be well referenced and well illustrated. I will therefore go through the article in more depth, section by section, but leaving the WP:Lead until last. This might take a few days. Pyrotec (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'm only concentrating on "problems" and ignoring the good points - they will be covered in the final summary.

• Background -

• The final statement in the first paragraph, i.e. Konkani people, could do with a citation.
  • Added a citation with quotes. 122.169.47.54 (talk) 05:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• In the second paragraph, the statement about Marco Polo is unreferenced - it does not appear to be covered by ref 11.
  • It is covered by REF11. You can check South Kanara District Gazetteer 1973, p. 101. If you hate downloading, then you can just check the Gazetteer Page 101 on Google Books. 122.169.47.54 (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, I could not find it at time, but your link works  Done Pyrotec (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Under Hyder Ali-

• Appears to be compliant.

• Causes -

....to be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• This first paragraph appears to show POV: it states "Tippu had also participated in the conquest of Mangalore along with Hyder in 1768, and was aware of the treachery of the Mangalorean Catholics towards the sovereign, and their help to the British" whereas in Under Hyder Ali it is stated that only some were condemned.

• Execution of orders -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Confiscation of property and destruction of churches -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Journey from Mangalore to Seringapatam -

• Appears to be compliant.

• 'The 15 year captivity -

• Appears to be compliant.

• End of captivity and re-establishment -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Criticism of Tippu -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Criticism of the Christians -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Remembrance of captivity -

• Appears to be compliant.

• Accounts of the Captivity -

• Are these two long quoations really needed?

Overall summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A comprehensive, well-referenced article.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   A well-referenced article

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   A well-referenced article

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   Well-illustrated

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Congratulations on the quality of the article: well done!. I'm awarding GA-status, and I'm sorry for the length of time to carry out the review. Pyrotec (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=129
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://summertimes.webs.com/articles.htm#182137287
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=189
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.daijiworld.com/chan/exclusive_arch.asp?ex_id=381
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/publications/afs/pdf/a173.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Genocide

More than half of the captives were massacred by Tipu's army. Then why on earth this article is titled "Captivity"? It should be titled something like, say, "Genocide of Mangalorean Catholics" or something similar. - Thazhemon (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Edits

I will be removing (or contradicting) many of the sources based on the viewpoints espoused in the most reliable (and recent) evaluation of the subject —— K.M., Lokesh (2008). "THE CAPTIVITY OF THE CANARA CHRISTIANS UNDER TIPU SULTAN: A STUDY IN THE PERCEPTIONS OF THE CATHOLIC OF CANARA". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 69: 475–485. ISSN 2249-1937. Noting that this article has been also cited as a recent review of the claim of the ‘captivity’ and conversion of Canara Christians by Janaki Nair. None of the cited scholarship are by historians, so reputed or over venues, so reputed. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there is even a journal on Islam and Christian-Muslim Relations! A paper here points out that Tipu Sultan did not single out only Canara Christians, but he also aksed all Christians in his territories and conquered territories to convert to Islam. He even asked the soldiers of his all-Christian battalion to convert. When the commander refused, he reduced the numbers in the battalion and eventually forced out the commander. The author concludes:

In the light of this information, it seems incorrect to suggest that Tipu ill-treated only the Christians of Canara.[18] Tipu seems rather to have adopted an almost uniform policy towards Christians.... Nevertheless, it is no doubt plausible that Tipu, when he heard, saw and believed that the Christians, whether European or Indian, were siding with the English or were not overtly sympathetic to his cause, would have been convinced that the war he waged against the English was two-pronged: on the one hand against the political colonization of south India and on the other against the spiritual advances made by Christianity. In fact, Tipu would have become aware by direct experience in Canara and Tamilnadu of the irrefutable historical fact that many Christian converts and their descendants were more eager to side with the English than to join with him to throw them out.

This is hardly the bigot he is made out to be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

GA Reassessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Captivity of Mangalorean Catholics at Seringapatam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

• >99% of the sources—an onerous dump of every hit in GBooks—fail to satisfy standards of scholarship on history especially for a topic as controversial as this. Passed about 13 years ago when standards of sourcing were very lax etc. Sources like Saldanha (1933), Goel (1993), Sinha (1949) are barely reliable; hell, even contemporary British gazeteers etc. have been used indiscriminately! (TrangaBellam (talk) 8 April 2022

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.