Talk:Syama Prasad Mukherjee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Syama Prasad Mookerjee)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject India / West Bengal / Politics (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject West Bengal (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Education[edit]

Can someone clarify or research if his 'Dr' title was conferred for any research he may have done, or of the honorary nature.

Spelling and Usage[edit]

There are a number of romanizations for the Bengali words "Syama" and "Mookerjee". "Syama" and "Mookerjee" was his preferred version, that is how he spelt his name in English. But usage is data is quite different:

Google Hits (May 06):

Shyama Prasad Mukherjee 9760 hits
Shyama Prasad Mookerjee 1070 hits
Syama Prasad Mookerjee 713 hits
Syama Prasad Mukherjee 21 hits

Of course, the title should remain Shyama Prasad Mookerjee, and the redirections links are all in place, but still, thought I would point out how the data is quite disbalanced... Mukerjee 23:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Shyama Mukherjee was not anti RSS. If he was anti RSS , he would not have Deen Dayal Upadhyaya as BJS's GSecy. Infact many of his BJS leaders came from RSS

?[edit]

I curious about the following passage "who made the BJS the chief Hindu conservative political party in the 1960s and 1970s". Wasn't BJS the dominant Hindu nationalist group already by the 1950s? As I understand it rapidly outgrew Ramrajya Parishad and the remants of Hindu Mahasabha. --Soman 07:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

SPM Fellowships[edit]

Deleted the details of Shyama Prasad Mukherjee fellowships , the article is about Shyama Prasad Mukherjee not the SPM Fellowships.The details of the fellowships may be made a part of CSIR -- Arkapravo

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Syama Prasad Mukherjee. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syama Prasad Mukherjee. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syama Prasad Mukherjee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haxwell (talk · contribs) 20:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)


Please correct/reword/rewrite some of the sections detailed in the following URL: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Syama+Prasad+Mukherjee&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0 Currently the "Possible Violation" is at 67.7%.. I'd like to see that down around 20%. Haxwell (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment @Haxwell: That tool shows similarities in the text, only. It does not check which version (Wikipedia's or the other) came first. Copyright violations are a serious concern, but Wikipedia being mirrored is not. In such a situation I'd suggest that you check to see whether the original text came from Wikipedia or from elsewhere; if Wikipedia wrote this stuff first, this is a non-issue; if the other content came first, then this is grounds for an immediate fail. Vanamonde (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Can you give me your opinion? I checked and I'm not sure.. I think you are probably correct (they copied wikipedia) but perhaps not.. Haxwell (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay. this url appears to have copied from Wikipedia; our article contained the text before the dailyexcelsior piece was published. The same is not true [1] for the other piece; in that case, Wikipedia appears to be the one plagiarizing. The decision on this result I will leave to you. Vanamonde (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'd also suggest the lead requires some expansion as it does not offer an overview of the article to the reader. Bungle (talkcontribs) 18:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment Additionally, Mukherjee's primary legacy is that of the party he founded and the ideology he propagated, ie, a political legacy. The legacy section should not consisted merely of things named after him. Vanamonde (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The reviewer disappeared, so placing back in the queue. Wizardman 15:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syama Prasad Mukherjee/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 06:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I am printing this out to go through it with a hard copy; I will be back in a couple of days with comments. Daniel Case (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay ...

It has been three days, not all of which I have spent reviewing it, but it has been more than enough time to decide that I will be putting this article on hold pending the issues I have identified being addressed. I will give the editors, or any interested editors, one week (until 19 October).

I am perhaps an ideal reviewer for this article. I live half a world away and do not know much about the intricacies of modern Indian history, thus the article has the challenge of teaching me. I am happy to inform the editors that I did learn something about a man whose existence I only knew of due to his unsolved death; I can now appreciate that Mukherjee is indeed a seminal figure in the country's modern politics, since I am aware of the BJP as India's current governing party and it seems it could not have been established without him (although not with just him; others certainly played a part) and his predecessor organization.

First, let me say what is right with the article. The prose is generally well-written; I did have to do some trimming of redundancies and awkward phrasings as part of the copyedit I did, but compared to some GA candidates I've seen it wasn't that much; it went quickly and only shortened the article by less than 300 bytes overall (which is very good; my scale is that if a copyedit costs the article more than 1K, it needed serious work). Textual information was well-presented in accordance with the rules of standard written English (there may be, or have been, some moments which were particular to Indian English, of which I plead ignorance, and if I corrected or below complain about something that is proper in that context, please let me know and go right ahead and restore it).

It is (and this is a relief) adequately cited; I have found only one instance (noted below) where there should be a citation and duly tagged it.

It is also well organized; with one exception I will discuss below the article does not feel fragmented. What I read was mostly where I would have expected to read about it.

The editors have also shown admirable restraint with images. I did not have to remove any extraneous ones, adjust their placement, or edit the cutlines. It is the rare GAN about which I can say this.

Now, to my bulleted-list critique ...

  • The intro is a little short, perhaps not reflecting the full scope of the expanded article. I feel that at least a third paragraph could be teased out of what already exists, perhaps focusing more on Mukherjee's career prior to politics and more on that political career itself.
    • And in that intro, as well as in the text, it would be a good idea to briefly explain Article 370. I didn't know what that was until I clicked the link. When I was reading it in hard copy, I didn't have even that option. Perhaps to Indian readers, or indeed South Asian readers generally, it needs no explanation, but I'm not one of that group of readers. And there are a lot of people in that group.
    • It might also be a good idea just to put a footnote at the end of the intro for the circumstances of his death being mysterious (although I understand why we can say that, I personally think that in this case "unclear" would be better).
  • Without any warning, the third graf of the "early life" section skips over nine years of the subject's life. It makes sense upon reading the next section, when we learn he went to England, but we really should explain that was what he was doing in the interim.
  • Throughout the article, exact dates are given for many events. This many years later, is that information the reader really needs to understand the article? I removed some during my copyedit, but left most because I thought I might be missing something.

    I suspect the editor responsible has confused his/her desire to show that they did the research with the relevance of the information thus obtained. It happens ... Face-smile.svg.

    The only place I would see this distinction as necessary is when discussing his death, where key events happen within the last two or so days. (And, of course, in the lede)

  • As with Article 370, there should be a brief appositive explanation of what the Quit India Movement sought (independence, basically). It's not immediately obvious from the name (who is being asked to quit India? Indians? Muslims? Oh, the British), and again I had to look it up.
  • The "opposition to Quit India movement" seems perhaps to have been written by someone other than the writer of the rest of the article, as it relies heavily on extensive blockquotes from Mukherjee and a historian. While it does not quite reach the level of copyvio, and it is properly attributed, it is decidedly borderline, and as I've learned from GA critiques of articles I have written myself we are trying to discourage people from writing this way (otherwise, we'd get people "writing" articles by putting some brief phrases between copied and pasted text from sources). I think this section could really be shortened by quoting more selectively and paraphrasing the rest.
    • Also, in that second quote, I see that the word "defense" is spelled the American way, the way I just spelled it. Is that as it is in the original? Does written Indian English follow British English that way? (The graphic at the top of the article suggests that it does).
    • I have tagged the last quote, from his 1953 letter to Nehru, as needing a citation (the only instance of this, I am relieved to say).
    • In the group photo cutline, is it necessary to name everyone? And likewise, would the personal life section be more obfuscatory without the years of his siblings' births and deaths? I think it should just be sufficient to give their names.
  • I would also consider addressing the point made by the previous, abandoned review, regarding Mukherjee's legacy: Does the BJP do anything to honor or remember him today? Do people like Modi or others mention him in speeches? Do they have any events or awards named after him? If there are we should know.

I also wonder if the article should or could have more, especially on his earlier life ... I mean, if he was this important, someone probably wrote a biography of him. But that may be a function of the sources, and indeed I note that both Bengali and Hindi articles are shorter (But it may be worthwhile to look at their sources, in those languages, for material this article may not have).

I am not sure all these issues can easily be addressed in a week, but I do not think it's impossible to do so. Good luck and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)