Talk:Kazi Nazrul Islam

message: 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)
replies: text: It is May 24, please provide reference, be bold and change that. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 13:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: date of birth

message: "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)
thread_title: older entries

message: 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 !</font>Aloodum 00:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I have been lazy and am only doing editing duties!  J O I B A N G L A !</font>Aloodum 17:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  edits 

message: 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)
thread_title: bangla

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Is this relevant? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nazrul in Jail... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Rebellion against what ? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks... then should we go ahead and remove this text?--Jahilia 09:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fixing 

message: I've removed from the "Legacy" section the sentence:
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: , , and  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)
thread_title:  Legacy: "banned ''Dhumketu''" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kazi Nazrul Islam. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026083724/http://www.nazrul.org/nazrul_works/poems_lyrics/kabir_rebel.htm to https://www.nazrul.org/nazrul_works/poems_lyrics/kabir_rebel.htm
*Added  tag to http://nazrul.org/nazrul_audio/recite.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Sugata Bose's A Hundred Horizons is cited near the end of this paragraph:
Bose supports a tiny piece of this, only that Byathar Dan translates as 'Gift of Sorrow'. It contradicts the publication date (1922) implied by the order of the sentences here, saying instead that the book was published in March 1920 (and evidently serialized earlier). Furthermore, page 131 of Bose describes Byathar Dan as a novella, which also contradicts its description here as a volume of short stories.
Recommendations:
* Move the Bengali-script titles of his works (e.g. "ব্যথার দান")  out of the body text to the more specialized List of works by Kazi Nazrul Islam, where Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works#Books in languages other than English encourages their presence. If Bose is anything to go by, reliable English-language sources use only the transliteration followed by the translation in parentheses. That would accord with the spirit of Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use other languages sparingly, which discourages interrupting the reader's flow.
* Consult authoritative sources on Kazi Nazrul Islam to resolve the discrepancies about when Byathar Dan was published and what form it took. Also, when it was written may be as or more important to his biography.
* Pages 130-133 of Bose (and the four corresponding footnotes on page 299) are about Kazi Nazrul Islam. They briefly cover his life from 1917 through 1921, and are potentially useful material. If the information presents a common view of him more clearly than well regarded biographies, or presents a unique view of him, then make use of those pages and cite them (I can send the pages to anyone willing to undertake the work). There's no question that Kazi Nazrul Islam is notable, however, so there's no need to cite everyone who mentions him. Don't cite Bose just because it comes up as a Google hit or because Bose is notable. Better to base the article as much as possible on the handful of preeminent Kazi Nazrul Islam experts. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor use of Sugata Bose's ''A Hundred Horizons'' 

message: The Career section, when describing Calcutta as the cultural capital of India, includes the parenthetical statement "(it stopped being the political capital of India in 1911)". For this it cites Peter Hall's Cities of Tomorrow, pp. 198-206. Nine pages is a lot for such a small statement. There isn't anything about Calcutta in those page of my copy (1st ed., 1988, ), but on page 184 it says, "At his Coronation Durbar in 1911, George V made the momentous announcement that the capital of British India would be transferred from Calcutta to Delhi ... [New Delhi took] twenty years to finish." 
Whether this supports the article text depends on what "stopped being" means. Perhaps at the instant of the announcement it ceased to be the titular capital, but moving the government didn't happen overnight. The site for New Delhi wasn't chosen until 1913, and in 1920, when Kazi Nazrul Islam moved to Calcutta, the inauguration of New Delhi was still eleven years away. Perhaps government used temporary quarters in Delhi while New Delhi was under construction, or moved to New Delhi piecemeal as facilities were completed, but it seem unlikely that the transfer was complete by 1920.
One could clarify the wording and fix the cited page, but the whole question of political capital is a distracting tangent in Kazi Nazrul Islam's biography. It's irrelevant whether or to what degree Calcutta was the political capital at that time. What is important for the biography of a cultural figure is that he moved to the cultural capital. The article demonstrates Calcutta's cultural importance by describing the organizations and luminaries with whom he interacted there (and that could bear to be expanded a little). I recommend removing the parenthetical statement about the political capital along with its source, in order to stick to the point. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has objected, so I've removed the off-topic parenthetical as proposed. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political capital off-topic 

message: I can tolerate Hinduism and Muslims but I cannot tolerate the Tikism (a tiki is a tuft of never cut hair kept on the head by certain Hindus to maintain personal Holiness) and beardism. Tiki is not Hinduism. It may be the sign of the pundit. Similarly beard is not Islam, it may be the sign of the mollah. All the hair-pulling have originated from those two tufts of hair. Today's fighting is also between the Pundit and the Mollah: It is not between the Hindus and the Muslims. No prophet has said, "I have come for Hindus I have come for Muslims I have come for Christians." They have said, "I have come for the humanity for everyone, like light." But the devotees of Krishna says, "Krishna is for Hindus." The followers of Muhammad says, "Muhammad is for the Muslims." The Disciple of Christ (say Christ) is for Christians. Krishna-Muhammad-Christ have become national property. This property is the root of all trouble. Men do not quarrel for light but they quarrel over cattle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinegarymass911 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed from text and kept here for further use and record

message: In article written in wikipedia the date of death of poet Kazi  Nazrul Islam is  written 29 August in 1976 in Bangladesh.
Today is 27 August 2019 and 12 Bhadra of Bengali era. 
The poet's death anniversary is officially observed  as per Bengali ara today on  12 Bhadra and the English date falls on 27 August.
Would you please mention both Bengali calendar date followed by Bangladesh since the poet went on grave with Bangladeshi Citizenship.
Regards. ... (talk) 10:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Death of Poet Nazrul 

message: It was said that He was Bangladeshi Poet.But He was born Indian.His family didn't even moved to Pakistan after India's partition.Later in 1972 Poet's family was invited to Bangladesh.And he was awarded Bangladeshi citizenship.And by the rule of India,his Indian citizenship got cancelled.But We have to remember one thing that He was not mentally stable when this happened.He was not consciously Bangladeshi at all.But as his family had taken the responsibility of him,and they considered Bangladeshi Citizenship.We have to say he become Bangladeshi.But what we can never do is that WE CAN'T INTRODUCE HIM AS BANGLADESHI POET.We can say he was Indian and Bangldeshi or if you ask me we can conclude HE WAS BENGALI.Hence if my edit(changing from Bangladeshi Post to Bengali Poet) got deleted,I am gonna report against him to WIKIPEDIA. SoumyaIamBengali (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citizenship of Kazi Najrul Islam 

message: The article combines statements from two sources:
# "He has fabulously experimented with Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit meters in his own works, producing superb rhythmic effects."
# "He profusely used Arabic and Persian words in his poetry."
into a statement that is not supported by either source:
:"He is also known to have experimented with Arabic, Persian, and Sanskrit words in his works to produce rhythmic effects."
Meter (poetry) is not the same as word origin. Latin poets borrowed Greek meters and used them with Latin words. Nazrul may have experimented with Persian meters and may have used Persian words profusely, but neither source says he used Persian words for any rhythmic effect they produce.
Also, there is some discussion in the body of his knowledge of and use of Persian, but the above sentence doesn't sum up anything in the body, so it doesn't belong in the lead. Finally, the sources, (1) a newspaper article quoting a self-proclaimed Nazrul expert who doesn't appear to have written any books or journal articles about Nazrul, and (2) a primary source research paper by two low profile academics who don't have a publication history on the subject of Nazrul, leave much to be desired. It would be better if the above sentence were removed. Perhaps it could be replaced by one summarizing what major scholarly books about Nazrul say about his work and Persian. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with you. It doesn't look convincing that he used these words to produce rhythmic effects in his poetry. We need to summarize real facts from the article body and use a better source like this written by Sajal Nag. - Ivan hersee (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Nag's point of view is one that should be incorporated into the article. I suspect that Priti Kumar Mitra's 2009 book The dissent of Nazrul Islam : poetry and history  would also be a good source. Alas, at present all the libraries where I might obtain it are closed indefinitely, so it may be some time before I'm able to consult it. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research: meter and words 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Nazrul research and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 28#Nazrul research until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nazrul research" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Sir missing you....Bisso bokkho hoite jugol konna kivabe chiniya anbo.....keu help korben ? 37.39.249.67 (talk) 05:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jugol Konna 

message: There is contradictory information on this page about poet Nazrul Islam's spouse. You have included Nargis Asar Khanum as Nazrul's spouse (m 1921, div 1937). And in the article you have mentioned the below: 
"On 18 June 1921, the day of the wedding, upon public insistence by Khan that the term "Nazrul must reside in Daulatpur after marriage" be included in the marriage contract, Nazrul Islam walked away from the wedding ceremony."
Therefore why do you mention that Nargis was Nazrul's spouse? The fact is, the wedding did NEVER take place, neither on that night nor anytime later, due to that unacceptable condition (and also a claim of Taka 25,000 as dowry payable by Nazrul). Nargis married writer Azizul Hakim on the following year. So, how she got married without being divorced from Nazrul? Do you have any information/evidence of a divorce issued by Nazrul? Then how do you justify Nargis as Nazrul's spouse? Just do your research again, if you don't know the details, and then delete Nargis as Nazrul's spouse. This is an unacceptable error by Wikipedia. Thank you. 
Tushar Roy, Canberra, Australia. 2001:8003:1C38:BB00:3CB2:8783:E9AB:8AE7 (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong inclusion of "Nargis Asar Khan" as Nazrul's spouse (m 1921, div 1937). Please delete it.