Talk:Kazi Nazrul Islam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Kazi Nazrul Islam is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Former good article nominee Kazi Nazrul Islam was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 14, 2007.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Kazi Nazrul Islam:

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Verify: Please add reliable sources for all of the information.

date of birth[edit]

nazrul.org says the date of birth is May 24, 1899; NOT Mayb 25, 1899. Can anyone verify this info and correct it? --149.169.24.205 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It is May 24, please provide reference, be bold and change that. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Asiatic Society says Nazrul born on 24th May 1899. But wiki Article says 25.

All of the Bangladeshi Article says it's 25th.

I think the problem occurred because Bengali year starts in India a day after starting in Bangladesh. রাহাত | 18:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

older entries[edit]

"I HAVE ASKED MY RELATIVES TO REFUSE THAT MONEY." why is this is boldface? obviously Nazrul didn't do it himself?--ppm 01:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

edits[edit]

i'm quietly making improvements by carrying out light copyediting duties on this page. it needs it!  J O I B A N G L A !Aloodum 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we need more photos of Nazrul. There are many on the web, but we need those that are in the public domain. --Ragib 01:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I have been lazy and am only doing editing duties!  J O I B A N G L A !Aloodum 17:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

bangla[edit]

it would be better if anyone could the "bhanga shikol" poem in bengali. I tried adding it but my bangla isn't that good and so backed down. এই সিকল ভাঙ্গা ছল, মোদের এই সকল ভাঙ্গা ছল
এই সিকল পরেই সিকল তোদের করবরে বিকল
Hikingdom 03:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Here are the 1st two lines:
এই শিকল পরা ছল, মোদের এই শিকল পরা ছল
এই শিকল পরেই শিকল তোদের করব রে বিকল --ppm 22:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this relevant?[edit]

Think about it, someone named his son and people are digging conspiracy from it. I haven't read any autobiography that states the person's naming of his son.Zahidbuet 09:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering, Aniruddha, Shobbochachi, Bulbul etc all are Bengali names. Are they Sanskrit names? Also, didn't he also have a daughter? Hikingdom 12:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes these names "Anirudhha" (Never denied), "Sabyasaachi" (Perfect aimer - salutation to Arjuna the master archer from Mahabharata)are Sanskrit names that have found their place in Bengali as Bengali is a language descending from Sanscrit like Hindi and Assamese and other Indian languages. The name "Bulbul" (Nightingale) is a Persian word. LutfullahLutfullah (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

May be, someone was trying to say that he didn't named from Arabic or Farsi. Think about it, Nazrul was never communal. He was a poet of the world, not of any community (Said by him in a speech). Zahid 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also think that. I don't think we need to prove Nazrul's humanity, brotherhood and Bengalism the way he and his wife named his kids. That line is very umimportant in this article. Mukerjee might want to reconsider that line or reword it. Hikingdom 16:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, Nazrul did not have a daughter. I was thinking that Khilkhil Kazi was Nazrul's daughter but she is really grand-daughter. :-)Hikingdom 02:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Thanks Hikingdom. Zahid 07:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Nazrul in Jail...[edit]

Somewhere in the article it is mentioned that Nazrul held a 40-day fast in jail to protest mistreatment. Well, I got a very different impression from parts of the famous 20th century Bengali humourist and author Shibram Chokrobortee's autobiography. He was Nazrul's contemporary and jailmate. According to him it was quite the opposite. I just uploaded the relevant excerpts onto a free site of mine for your consideration. Please find the excerpts here: http://www.geocities.com/monmajhi/ .

One other point : I found most English translations of the poem "Bidrohi" (The Rebel) extremely unsatisfactory and wanting. Almost all of them have miserably failed to capture the flow, vigour and zest of the original. Only one so far, in my view, has succeeded in approximating any semblance of the original's spirit at all -- and I've uploaded this translation too for the editors' consideration. If you agree with me, and if relevant constraints permit, may be you can use some excerpts from it in the article here. --Monmajhi 16:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I couldn't find the excerpt, I wonder if it is buried somewhere in the link you provide. Nazrul's 40-day fast is a rather famous event, prompting Tagore to send a request to stop it, Nazrul's friend Nalinikanta Sarkar breaking into jail to request the same, and finally (I believe) Pramila's mother being able to make him give up the fast.--ppm 01:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I completely missed the pdf file, I apologize. Now, that was another time :)....Nazrul was a regular visitor to multiple jails all over the country :)--ppm 01:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebellion against what ?[edit]

I don't like this line in the very first paragraph of the article : "...who is best known for pioneering works in Bengali expressing fierce rebellion against society, tradition, politics, injustice, intolerance and oppression". Sounds pretty confusing to me. Perhaps a bit pompous too . I thought anybody who is fiercely rebellious towards organized society is called an "anti-social" person. Was Nazrul an anti-social person ? Was he indiscriminately against all 'tradition' and 'politics' ? Was he against 'tradition' or 'politics' itself ? Was his oppsition, if any, a blanket-opposition ? The answer to all these questions is NO. Yet, this line gives almost the opposite impression. Nazrul wasn't rebellious against the 'Society' itself, he was against many social ills. He wasn't against tradition and politics either, but only against the negative, retrogressive or harmful sides of the two. In fact, his poetry effusively celebrates many traditions, and even some politics. Finally, the line quoted above gives one the idea, even if unwittingly, that "society, tradition, politics, injustice, intolerance and oppression" are essentially all one and the same thing. This is a very misleading and warped POV. This muddled sentence needs serious correction. Perhaps it could be written like this : "... expressing fierce rebellion against social ills, stagnant (or regressive) traditions, unprincipled or parochial politics, injustice, intolerance and oppression." My suggestion further complicates the already long & winding sentence though. Any better suggestion ?

This is really important because it is THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE of the article !!

--Monmajhi 22:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I am simplifying this. KZN was many things, but I think his other identities are subsumed by his poetry. The first line should say this in clearer unhindered prose. Mukerjee (Talk) 16:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed a number of other lacunae - poetry quotes as poetry; the excellent references introduced by Rama's arrow - were being fully repeated time and again; compacted them using the name reference; compacted some other parts; the article is already too long and tends to throw off the reader - brought down from 46K to 43K; the lead focuses on too many points not relevant to his literary life; abbreviated. Mukerjee (Talk) 04:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mukerjee - I appreciate the improvements but the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, so its ok if some points are repeated. I have to reinsert the first para becoz the present situation is disjointed. Don't worry about the length, though I agree that Persian/Sanskrit are not necessary to mention in the lead. Thanks, Rama's arrow 15:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

First we start with:

However, most of his descriptions of women do not exceed beyond homely roles.[14] His poetry retains long-standing notions of men and women in binary opposition to one another and does not affirm gender similarities and flexibility in the social structure:

Then we go conclude:

Nazrul is hailed for his sincere conviction in the liberation of women. His poems explored the independence of a woman's mind and the ability to perform diverse roles in society.[16] His vision of gender equality was powerfully expressed in his poem "Woman."[17]

Some one could shed some truth?--Jahilia 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the first quote is better-supported. I couldn't find much in the second source to support the statement. Brutannica 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... then should we go ahead and remove this text?--Jahilia 09:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixing[edit]

Can someone find sources for a lot of the things in the article? Eg, Source 5 only links to the front page of a website but not the contents of the actual pages that were used for the source. Another thing was that one of the sources was an essay by McDaniel that had yet to be published in an academic book or a journal, however, the essay transcript was used for a large part of the scholarly analysis, which is a problem. Another thing is that there is inconsistency as to whether quotation marks or italics are used for poems and nicknames. I have already grouped the repeated citations and fixed up some of the errors in there. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Per a RSN discussion, it appears that conference talks are not RS unless the contents are later peer reviewed and authorised for formal journal/book publishing. The paper given by Mr Ahsanuzzaman are given verbatim on the website and the conference people said that they aren't responsible for its contents. For example, the title has a clear grammar error and many sentences have major grammar errors as well. Another thing is that in the other blog interview linked, which is apparently from 2008, it says that the author is currently a masters student, which means that he was very likely a undergraduate student in 2003 when this essay was published. So it doesn't appear to be RS and certainly there are more notable books by notable professors printed on this famous poet. This is the same for the piece by June McDaniel, who is a professor, but her talk was not published/peer reviewed: CV here. In any case, the paper couldn't be found so that it could be verified. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Nazrul.org has been removed because it only points to the front page and doesn't verify anything. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There was not alternative without rewriting some sentences/paras. I hope, we have completed our article for FA status. --Anwarul Islam (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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.

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kazi Nazrul Islam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: two found, one fixed, the other, Sundarpur, needs sorting out as it could refer to several targets in India and Nepal.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: three found and fixed.[2] Jezhotwells (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is very poor throughout with ungrammatical constructions, abbreviations and poor word choice. It is quick-failed on that alone. Please get it copy-edited by someone who has a good command of plain English, then get it peer reviewed before renomination. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I am quick-failing this because the prose is nowhere near GA standard. Please ensure that articles meet the criteria before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

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.