Talk:Rabindranath Tagore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rabindranath Tagore article.
Troll warning This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, regardless of whether trolling is suspected or not.
Featured article star Rabindranath Tagore is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.
Featured article FA Quality: FA-Class (see comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
This article is maintained by the West Bengal workgroup.
More information about this article...
Main Page trophy Rabindranath Tagore appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 7, 2006.
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category Langlit.
Archive
Archives
Archive 01

Contents

[edit] poem - title - motherland

Is the following poem titled 'motherland'written by Tagore?

Blessed am I that I am born to this land; And that I had the luck to love her; What care I if queenly treasure is not in her store; But precious enough is for me the living wealth of her love.

The best gift of fragrance to my heart to my heart is; From her own flowers; And I know not where else shines the moon; That can flood my being with such loveliness.

[edit] upanayan ?

Is it a Brahmin only thing? I thought it wasn't--ppm 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bharatveer's claim of "malicious edit"

Definition of malicious:

Intentional intimidation associated with a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap that causes physical injury to another person; or by words or conduct places another person in reasonable fear of harm.
having the nature of or resulting from malice;

So, exactly what do you mean by malicious edit? What exactly is the Intentional intimidation associated with a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, or mental, physical, or sensory handicap that causes physical injury to another person here? In the last 5 days, I notice 7 reverts by you on a very illogical basis: You want the word "Undivided India" in the first sentence, even though it is given in the proper context in the very next para. User:Saravask has clearly explained that the word is given in a proper location and context, yet you continue the reverts. I suggest you learn to refrain from personal attacks like the one I've linked here (unless if you can invent some notion of imaginary "malice" here). The thing being questioned here is context of the words, and certainly, you are illogically insisting on adding it in an out-of-context place.

In any case, please see WP:CIVIL, and learn NOT to make personal attacks in edit summaries. Thank you. --Ragib 04:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "malice " as perMalice is wish to do harm: the intention or desire to cause harm or pain to somebody.
And here your malice is towards "India" as can be seen from TalkArchives.-Bharatveer 05:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Now, you are launching personal attacks. If you have any logical point, please use that rather than ad hominem attacks. Even by your definition, you can't claim malice without showing how better wording is "malicious". Note that the word "Undivided India" is present in the very next para, where the location of his birth is noted. Under your claim, why would I leave that out? I assume User:Saravask is also "malicious towarsd India", by your definition. The question here is the out-of-context placement of the word "Undivided india" in the first sentence, and Saravask is correct to point it out to you that the very next para, where his birthplace is mentioned, clearly and explicitly has the information. Correcting redundant, sloppy text is not malice under anyone but your definition.
It doesn't hurt to be logical, civil, and polite in wikipedia. I suggest again that you do so in making comments in wikipedia. The personal attack you made in the reply to my question above is deplorable. You don't really have to like me, but making unfounded comments about me (as you did above and also in edit summaries) are personal attacks, and against wikipedia's policies. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL for detailed guidelines about civility and politeness. Thank you. --Ragib 05:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I also request you to withdraw your nasty personal attack above. Thanks. --Ragib 05:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not a Personal atack.Pointing out facts does not constitute personal attack.It is a fact that you are highly prejudiced against "India".From your earlier attempts to deny the fact that tagore was an Indian to your removal ofthe word "India" from the first paragraph clearly shows your Povs.It would be better if you try to keep your personal dislikes out of wikipedia.-Bharatveer 05:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
"Fact" to you, not to me or anyone else. Whatever you think of me, I can never change it, but making such assumptions of bad faith about another user IS a personal attack. See WP:NPA again. I have worked with a lot of Indian editors in enhancing a lot of India-related articles. So, it definitely pains me to get such personal attacks from you. (You made similar personal attacks against User:Shmitra and several other editors, so I again request you to maintain talk page etiquette and NOT make assumption of bad faith just because you "think" so). Thank you. --Ragib 05:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(De-indenting.) To Bharatveer: If you love India so much, then why not focus this intense passion on getting another India-related article featured? Why waste your time with this? Why would the edits of trusted contributors like Ragib be "malicious"? Why not drop this? All three of us could be doing better things with our time, to say the least. But I admit I believe that this request is probably going nowhere. Saravask 05:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Saravask,I never asked for your advise in the first place.Wikipedia would be a better place if personal likes & dislikes are kept out.I have shown the previous edit histories of your "trusted" contributor.So why not keep this article the way it was like before.-Bharatveer 06:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

A nationalistic debate on Tagore page. Definition of Irony, with a capital "I"--ppm 06:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay let me butt in for a bit here.I think claims of Ragib being "hateful" or "malicious" are a bit unfair .He has raised a point with which some users may not agree, but I do not see any malice or "anti-India" prejudice. Bharatveer I request you to refrain from using such terms so liberally. There are many racist anti-India bigots and hatemongers on wikipedia and accusing innocent users like Ragib of such attitudes diminishes the credibility of allegations against the REAL anti-India bigots.
Now, having said that, I must point out that Tagore was born in British India (before India the nation or Bangladesh the nation existed), so using either "from India" or "from Bangladesh" is innaccurate. the right way to say is that he was from "Colonial India" or "British India", which describes a region. It can also be okay to say that he was from "West Bengal" (Kolkata), which describes a region. Let the reader see the wiki-article and judge for himself.Hkelkar 06:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hkelkar's comment about wording, and for the record, I have agreed to this consensus in the debates over wording of this article (the debate was over categorization, and I've accepted the consensus, the arguments of other editors were logical, and therefore I accepted that). Also, for the record, the article now has the text "A [[Pirali Brahmin|Pirali]] [[Bengali Brahmin]] from Calcutta ([[Kolkata]]), [[Undivided India|India]]". I.e., it expresses the exact thing Hkelkar has suggested above (and of course, I don't have any problem with it). However, Bharatveer is adamant to move the phrase "Undivided india" to the very first sentence, even though the phrase is out of context there, and having it mentioned in the second para is a better option. Saravask and I have this opinion, yet Bharatveer claims to "see" my "malice" towards an entire nation in that!! --Ragib 06:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit-con)While I also think Bharatveer was a bit adventurous with his comments, I have to say there was an amazing amount of Bad Faith in Sarvask's comment. Bharatveer was the only person stopping macaulayist revisionism of the Sanskrit language, and he single-handedly held off a revert warrer and an admin who from time-to-time takes the liberty to abuse his priviledges (he was censured by Blnguyen for that). Back to the Tagore article, the nobel prize site here says he lived in India. Bakaman Bakatalk 06:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Bharatveer's finding of malice is not over the use of text implying Tagore was from India. See above for the actual context of "malicious edit" claimed by Bharatveer. --Ragib 06:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me add to my previous statement about one matter. I see that there was a debate over this before and the consensus was to keep "Undivided India". So is the present debate over whether it should belong in the first sentence or not? If that is the debate, then I fail to see the point of opposing it. Will someone clarify the situation for me below please?Hkelkar 10:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The point in question is whether we need to have the first sentence as
  • "Rabindranath Tagore ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] or [taˈgɔ(ɹ)] (help·info);[α] Bangla: রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর (help·info);[β] 7 May 1861 – 7 August 1941[γ]), also known by the sobriquet Gurudev,[δ] was a Bengali poet from [[Undivided India|India]], Brahmo Samaj (syncretic Hindu monotheist) philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist whose works reshaped Bengali literature and music in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. "
Or as
  • Rabindranath Tagore ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] or [taˈgɔ(ɹ)] (help·info);[α] Bangla: রবীন্দ্রনাথ ঠাকুর (help·info);[β] 7 May 1861 – 7 August 1941[γ]), also known by the sobriquet Gurudev,[δ] was a Bengali poet, Brahmo Samaj (syncretic Hindu monotheist) philosopher, visual artist, playwright, composer, and novelist whose works reshaped Bengali literature and music in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
The argument by Saravask and me is that, "from India" is already mentioned at the start of the very next para (i.e. one sentence later) as
  • A Pirali Bengali Brahmin from Calcutta (Kolkata), [[Undivided India|India]], Tagore first wrote poems at age eight ....
There is no reason to duplicate the same information/text over and over, and Saravask's argument is that, putting geographic information to where it belongs (beside birthplace name/city etc.) is enough. However, Bharatveer insists that we must duplicate the information in the first sentence too, i.e. qualify the ethnicity with the geo-political information.
Hope this puts the whole point in the context. --Ragib 10:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that matter up. Now, I would like to hear Bharatveer's side of the argument. Please post below. Thanks.Hkelkar 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
User-ragib:"we must duplicate the information in the first sentence too"
Now this is real funny stuff. -Bharatveer 12:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I request that nobody get emotive on this. I am already very frustrated from staving off Islamist whack-jobs and their left-wing lovers in other articles (fortunately both Ragib and Bharatveer here seem to have honorable intentions and are not bigots of any denomination as I see it) and do not need more partisan fighting. I beg all users to arrive at a mutually acceptable conclusion.Now, Bharatveer, could you please elaborate your argument a bit below? I would like to hear your side of the story.Hkelkar 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is that instead of deleting "india" from the first sentence ; The first sentence should be retained as it was & the second line may be modified by deleting the word "india" .-Bharatveer 13:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Response to Hkelkar: This Talk page is just one example of how a small cadre of editors can hijack the time and effort of a number of useful editors into a nitpicking exercise for which there is no end. These small number of editors spend all their time and energy on WP imagining 'anti-Indian' bias and where there is none. They typically make no useful contribution in terms of improving articles, rather they constantly engage in edit/revert wars. I admire Ragib's patience in this regard despite the number of time he had to deal with these editors. - Parthi talk/contribs 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Bharatveer, could you please explain to me what is the advantage of "from India" being in the first sentence over it being in a subsequent sentence which a reader is virtually guaranteed to read?Hkelkar 05:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no great advantage.But that deletion was done in bad faith.-Bharatveer 05:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
So you mean you revert, just because you don't like me editing the article? Also, what "bad faith" you have here? You continuously attack me personally, without providing supporting arguments for your position (which you just admitted above). Perhaps you should learn to get above your personal dislike of me and come up with better arguments. Thank you. --Ragib 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have never attacked you personally.I was just stating the fact that the inclusion of the word "indian" was discussed and finalised as can be seen from the talk page archive.YOU just utilised User:saravask's recent edit to delete the "Indian" once again from the article.It is you who should learn to Keep WP off your personal dislikes.-Bharatveer 06:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Your argument fails to hold water, because if that were true, I'd be going after the "Indian" in the second sentence as well, which I didn't and won't. I haven't commented on you personally, even though you have attacked me on several occasions via edit summaries and talk page comments (some I linked above). And yes, I am keeping my personal likes and dislikes away from my talk page comments here (though sometimes it becomes too hard to show such patience). Thank you. --Ragib 06:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You have attacked me personally on many occasions.But there is no point in continuing this discussion anymore.-Bharatveer 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Settle down everyone

This seems to be a very minor point and hopefully consensus will be easily reached. Raise your arguments below or above. I've protected the article in the interim -- Samir धर्म 02:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I just noticed this edit. I initially reverted him/her because I was sure that Robinson mentioned his marriage being arranged by his father. But then I noticed I had missed the phrase ten-year-old, Mrinalini Devi [sic]. Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the Robinson book, so I'm going to assume that the anon is correct in deleting it. I'll try to check Mrinalini's age at marriage later. My apologies. Saravask 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(In response to Saravask, above) I have the Dutta/Robinson in front of me, here is the relevant passage:

[from p.86] Within three weeks, however, with Rabindranath back in Calcutta, arrangements for his wedding were put in hand. Presumably Debendranath had asked others in Jessore to look out for a bride. Someone - a great-aunt on his late wife's side - had suggested the daughter of an employee on the Tagore estates. She was a Pirali Brahmin, about ten years old, quite thin, not good-looking and almost illiterate; her name was Bhabatarini, which was old-fashioned even in 1883. Rabindranath appears to have accepted his father's choice without meeting her. [...] The wedding took place at Jorasanko on 9 December 1883. [...] Bhabatarini stayed about a month in Jorasanko. Her name was changed to one more euphonious: Mrinalini (roughly, 'lotus-like') - suggested not by Rabindranath but by his brother Dwijendranath.

So there are two issues raised by Saravask, firstly the issue of Rabindranath's return to India being a result of his father's having a bride, and secondly how old Mrinalini was when Rabindranath married her. To the first issue, the relevant passage about Rabindranath's return in 1880 (p. 76) mentions nothing about his father having arranged a marriage, furthermore it was three and a half years before he was to be married, so I think that addition is untrue. To the second issue, Mrinalini's age, ten is in fact correct. Another issue though that I raise here is the question of her name. As the quote above says, when she was married, her name was different (Bhabatarini as opposed to Mrinalini) and also the addition of "Devi". Devi, according to Dutta/Robinson, "was then the Bengali honorific for a married woman, similar to Mrs" (p. 86). Should this passage then say "he married Bhabatarini (later Mrinalini Devi)" or something to that effect? I have no opinion here, and not much knowledge, so this is really just a question. Tagith 04:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But on pages 86 and 87, there are strong hints that Debendranath arranged Tagore's marriage; I still agree about page 76. Feel free to add his wife's age. I don't know much about Bengali marriage customs; better that someone else answers that. Thanks. Saravask 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Bengali marriage custom (until very recently) was to have marriages arranged by parents. So it is almost absolutely certain that the marriage was arranged by Tagore's family. In fact, with a few exceptions, all of 19th and early 20th century marriages in Bengal were arranged ones. Thanks. Mrinalini's name was given after her wedding (another custom prevalent at that time). It should also be noted that Tagore family tradition was to wed women from lower-income village families from East Bengal (where the Tagores originally came from). Thanks. --Ragib 00:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The age seems abt right — I seem to remember eight. On Debendranath, at the very least he agreed to this marriage, I suspect anybody so much as talked without his approval in the Tagore household--ppm 18:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/b/Talk%7ERabindranath_Tagore_b4a5.html"