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.
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 awaiting attention:
  • 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.

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.

Legacy: "banned Dhumketu"[edit]

I've removed from the "Legacy" section the sentence:

British government banned the magazine of Nazrul named Dhumketu because of publishing a political poem "Anondomoyeer Agomone" on September 26, 1922.

The cited source (dead, but archived at blacklisted archive dot is) does say this, but Banglapedia says only that the issue containing the poem was proscribed, and more recent articles: "Tribute to the Rebel Poet". The New Nation. 27 May 2015. , "39th death anniversary of Bangladesh's National Poet Nazrul today". The Daily Star. 27 August 2015. , and Kamol, Ershad (27 August 2015). "Nazrul's death anniv today". New Age.  emphasize Nazrul's arrest and imprisonment without saying anything about the effect on the magazine.

Whether the entire magazine or that one issue of it was banned (and because the first interpretation appears in only one source and in rather shaky English, I'm skeptical that it's reliable for that fact), the sentence is out of place in the "Legacy" section of the article. Other writings of Nazrul's were banned too; there's no reason to single out the banning of this piece. Furthermore, consensus seems to be that the importance of this episode lies in Nazrul's arrest, conviction, and imprisonment, which is already well covered in the "Revolutionary" section. Worldbruce (talk) 02:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

from main article[edit]

Come back my birdie! Come back again to my empty bosom! Shunno e bookey paakhi mor aaye! Phirey aaye phirey aaye![1]

Let people of all countries and all times come together. At one great union of humanity. Let them listen to the flute music of one great unity. Should a single person be hurt, all hearts should feel it equally. If one person is insulted; it is a shame to all mankind, an insult to all! Today is the grand uprising of the agony of universal man.[2]

The badnaa, a water jug typical in usage by Bengali Muslims for ablutions (wazu) and bath (ghusl) and the gaaru a water pot typical in usage by Bengali Hindus, meet and embrace each other under the peace of the new pact (between the rioting Hindus and Muslims in Bengal during the British Raj on certain politico-religious differences and disputes that had preceded the said pact). There is no knife in the hand of the Muslim and also the Hindu does not wield the bamboo any more! Bodna gaaru te kolakuli korey! Nobo pact er aashnaai! Musholmaaner haatey naai chhuri! Hindur haatey baansh naai![3]

References

  1. ^ Nazrul Geeti.
  2. ^ Chakravarthy, p. 72.
  3. ^ Pact, a poem.

A question following GOCE Copy-edit[edit]

In response to a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests, I have completed a copy-edit of Kazi Nazrul Islam. I have a question:

I'd like to know if the first blockquote in Kazi Nazrul Islam#Religious beliefs, which is clearly a translation, appears like this in the source, or if it is an informal translation not taken directly from a source. If it appears like this in the source, we have to leave it as it is. If it is an informal translation, then we can edit it. It is full of spelling and grammatical errors. Corinne (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne for a job well done. Much appreciated. I am not sure; since it does not name the translator, it could be informal. Do you think this article is GA ready and if not what can I do to improve it. Any and all advice is welcome. Thanks. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911 Thanks! I am not an experienced reviewer, so I'm not familiar with the specific things reviewers look for (except for well-written prose and consistency in date styles, English spelling style, etc.), but upon looking at the article again just now, I see some things that could be made clearer:
1) In the lead, you mentioned that Nasrul is Bangladesh's national poet two times. I think only once is sufficient. I think it should be near the beginning of the article, so I removed the second mention.
Upon removing the second mention,  – "he is officialy recognised as the National Poet of Bangladesh" – (since you have said this already), what is left of the sentence did not contain a mention of how Nazrul is revered even today in Bangladesh; it skipped right to India. I thought it was worth mentioning, so I added that to the sentence. You'll see I did a little re-arranging of the lead.
2) I found the sentence later on in the article (in the "Legacy" section) that said he was conferred the title of national poet of Bangladesh, but it doesn't say when, or whether there was any kind of ceremony. I think it should at least say in what year this occurred.
3) In the lead you say (in the sentence I modified yesterday), that he "launched an Indo-Islamic cultural renaissance". I see some mention of this in more than one section, but I don't recall reading about any specific writers or musicians that he influenced (as part of this Indo-Islamic renaissance). If there were some, perhaps a few could be mentioned.
4) You use the phrase "mass music", and there is even a section with this as the heading. I'm not sure this is the right phrase. Jerome Kohl Can you think of a better phrase? Corinne (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This expression is cited to a source, which might be the best reason not to change it. The context makes the sense clear, though I agree it is ambiguous. The first thing that pops into my mind when seeing this is music for the (Catholic) mass. "Music of (or for) the masses" is unambiguous, and would be preferable if the sources permit it. (There is also a third sense of "mass music", which is music involving dense crowds of notes, but this is usually avoided for exactly the same reason, in favour of "statistical music", "sound clouds", or something similar.)—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Corinne for the helpful suggestions. I have either implemented them or on the way to do so. Cheers. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kazi Nazrul Islam/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well written:
1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct. It is written like a parochial hagiography, which can't even agree how to render his wife's name consistently.
1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead includes a conspiracy theory (poisoning) not discussed in the body. Plenty of "words to watch" violations throughout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. What references we do have are adequately formatted.
2b. 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. I see no issues with the reliability of the inline citations we DO have in the article.
2c. it contains no original research. Many statements of fact throughout the article should have in-line citations but do not. e.g., "Nazrul became the first person to introduce Islam into the larger mainstream tradition of Bengali music."
2d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Earwig's detector finds at least three websites where close paraphrasing to (or from) the article has taken place. This needs further investigation beyond the scope of just a review.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Seems appropriate
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). "Noted Nazrul Sangeet singers" section is coatracking, which I would consider insufficiently related to this gentleman's own article.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. "Exploring the life and conditions of the downtrodden masses of the Indian subcontinent, Nazrul worked for their emancipation." That's in the lead? Yeah... no.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Borderline. There's a moderate bit of churn ongoing, compared to how little the talk page is used.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:
6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content. All the contemporary photos are fine, but "File:Statue of Kazi Nazrul Islam, Asansol.jpg" may infringe on the copyright of the work of sculpture. I'm simply not sure how the rights of the sculptor influence our decision to portray a picture of the sculpture, but even if this were removed or deemed 100% acceptable, that would still not change the status of the article, given the other issues.
6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. There may even be too many, which is a good problem to have.
7. Overall assessment. With regrets, this article on a clearly important and worthy gentleman is not up to GA standards for the reasons outlined above.

First read-through[edit]

Working. This may take me a few days, but you've been waiting for about six months, so I thought I'd let you at least know that this is on my radar next and you WILL get a thorough review from me. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problems with this article are so many and varied that there's really no good way to place this on hold. It needs to be fundamentally rewritten in a neutral voice, with better prose. I learned a lot from reading through it, and I wish it were better than it currently is. Jclemens (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2016 (UTC)