Talk:Rabindranath Tagore/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The Tagore article was (and remains) so sparse!! His literary canon is hardly discussed, except some banal remarks on his excellence. Much more solid work is needed in this article... and we cannot do it based on internet sources alone. We need volunteers to elaborate on:

- his extensive travels, from 1912 onwards - he went to the middle-East,
   Argentina (his relationship with Ocampo), Europe (esp. Germany, where
   they still have a Tagore center in Berlin), etc. 
- his short stories, which I wanted to say something about but 
  fell short in the edits I have put in today...
- his novels - esp gorA, sheSher kabitA, nashTanIr (basis for movie, chArulatA) -      
   and also reflecting on his relationship with Kadambari
- the people he interacted with - his work at shantiniketan - who visited 
  him - JC Bose, Mahalanabis, Chinese scholars etc. 

Should we set up a team? Let me know if you would like to take up one of these topics (or any other).

As for the dates, 22 Shravana fell on 6 August some years like 2004. But the year he died, 1941, it was on 7 August, I believe. Let's not bicker about dates. Also Balatonfured is such a marginal episode... let's get on with the basics!

And as for Bangladesh - of course Tagore was a Bangladeshi. He never knew there would be two different nations where he stood... I think there is enough Tagore for the whole world, and let us not fight over his legacy in these two puny insignificant populations...

Rabindranath Tagore was not a Bangladeshi. There was no country named Bangladesh when Rabindranath died. Yes, "Bangladesh" was used to refer to the united Bengal but after 1971, formally and legally, "Bangladesh" is used to refer to East Bengal. Furthermore, there was no such word as "Bangladeshi"...there was only "Bengali" and "Bangalee" for East Bengalis. Rabindranath was born in West Bengal and therefore, no way he was a Bangladeshi. In wikipedia, we talk in formally and legally not culturally or patriotically. Maybe patriotically Tagore was a Bangladeshi as his songs played a tremendous role in 1971 freedom struggle. However, too bad it is an encyclopedia for everyone not encyclopedia with a "Bangladeshi" angle. Thinker2006 18:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am the one who categorized Tagore as Bangladeshi. As you correctly point out that pre-1971 there was no Bangladesh. But note this: there was likewise (pre-1947) no India — only the Raj and some princely states. Does this mean that Tagore was not Indian? No, he was, since he lived in what is now India. In addition, Tagore lived in what is now Bangladesh for some eleven years (at Shelidah). Saravask 03:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The same reason why he's an "Indian poet" referring to the current country of India, he is a "Bangladeshi writer" referring to the current country of Bangladesh. When he died, none existed. His categorization as a "Bengali writer/novelist" is unquestionable, but "X novelist", X being the name of a current country, is dubious, let X be India or Bangladesh. So, I don't see any reason of excluding one while including the other. Thanks. --Ragib 04:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about geographic region here. You are wrong to say that formally india never existed before 1947. Actually India always existed. "India" was used to refer to the geographic region of South-Asia by the non-South Asians. For instance, British East India company is named after india. Rabindranath is from the geographic region of India but he is not from the current geographic region of Bangladesh. If ever in the near future west bengal separate from india and unite with Bangladesh, he would be referred to as a "Bangladeshi" writer because then he would be from the geographical area, known as "Bangladesh." However, now, he is from the geographical area named India, not Bangladesh. Geographically Bangladesh is located a little bit on the east from the area he was actually from. Also, yes, tagore lived in bangladesh but not for a long time. He lived more in West Bengal. That's where he was born and grown up. Rabindranath also lived in Britain, so is he a British writer? Thinker2006 16:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a big issue of this by acting on

PIO, bcs it needlessly antagonizes/alienates Bangladeshis, Pakistanis, Bhutanese, etc. Given the inextricably intertwined histories of South Asian countries, either of these approaches would be (as Ragib pointed out) far less dubious than merely categorizing him in such an illogical/binary fashion as Indian or Bangladeshi. Given how anti-nationalist Tagore himself was, should we now really be that concerned w/ sticking him under one nationality or another, or refusing to list him under other nationalities due to technicalities? Hope this helps. Saravask

23:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's drop philosophical elements and stick with official documents, shall we? Officially, Tagore is an Indian, not a Bangladeshi and we should report that. I guess you could go to the court and prove that Tagore is not an Indian. Then that would a different story. About your philosophy on South-Asia, well that is a way too liberal or lefty way of thinking. What about in wikipedia, we dissolve all the countries because don't you think that would be a better NPOV? Thinker2006 03:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW - does anyone know why bn.wikipedia is in such a sad state?

--Mukerjee 18:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Did he die on August 6 or August 7? See [1], [2] --Hemanshu 18:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

He had also visited Hungary and stayed in Balatonfüred for health reasons. He was received with adoration and respect, and he became known and very popular with the Hungarians. His bust is found in a promenade named after him on the shore of Lake Balaton where contemporary Indians would pay a visit while in Hungary to boost his memory.

I guess Tagore is now a Hungarian poet too, eh? Stop trying to categorize Tagore as a Bangladeshi poet. There has been enough discussion regarding this showing that Tagore is not a Bangladeshi. Hikingdom 00:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Could upload picture of Tagore promenade in Balatonfüred, if requested

Good idea, but put it in the article on Balatonfüred, where it would be more relevant, then it can be mentioned in this article and a link to the town will allow people to see it. Trilobite (Talk) 01:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Tagore couldn't have pioneered it if his ideas helped refute Kipling's, which were already around. –JerryFriedman 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok, recently, User:Himanshu raised the point on how Rabindranath is categorized as a Bangladeshi poet. Well, he IS the author of the national anthem, and his early days were passed on Shilaidoho kuthi bari in Kushtia. Rabindranath's family had their Jamindari there and Tagore spent quite some time there. So definitely he can be categorized as Bangladeshi poet. I would also like to point out that if Rabindranath cannot be categorized as such, categorizing him as a Hindu poet is equally wrong. (He was a follower of Brhammo religion, which was monotheistic, and had marked differences with traditional hinduism). --Ragib 20:27, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Instead of reverting the changes, why not discuss it here? Rabindranath Tagore died before the greater British India was partitioned into 2 and later 3 states: Current India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. So I do not see categorizing Rabindranath as Bangladeshi people any different from categorizing him as Indian poet etc. Even wrong is to categorize him as a Hindu poet or Hindu religious figure. So, I would reiterate my call for discussion of the fact here rather than total revert. Please come forward and discuss. It can't hurt the progress of wikipedia. --Ragib 05:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hmmm, I don't understand why its so difficult to discuss and reason here rather than just deleting my edits (by anon thi time). --Ragib 14:25, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Hemanshu (talk · contribs),could you please tell me why you are repeatedly editing out the category Bangladeshi people from Rabindranath Tagore? I tried to discuss this in the talk page, but you didn't reply. Let us have a discussion there please. As for why Rabindranath can be categorized in Bangladeshi people, I would suggest you take a look at some references I am providing here.... Rabindranath's ancestors came from East Bengal or were associated with it in different ways. And Rabindranath himself spent considerable time in what is now Bangladesh. The Kuthibari at Shilaidoho is preserved as a museum. Rabindranath used to sail through the Padma river in his houseboat. In fact, much of his time pre-nobel prize was spent in what is now Bangladesh. So, don't just delete references abruptly without checking out the references. Also, my point is, if you don't want Rabindranath Tagore categorized as a Bangladeshi people, you cannot categorize him as 1. Indian poet 2. Hindu poet, using the same logic. So let us have a discussion on this. Thanks. --Ragib 18:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Reference, here is Banglapedia article on Rabindranath and Banglapedia article on Prince Dwarkanath Tagore, Rabindranath's Grandfather. Also (Blair B Kling, Partner in Empire: Dwarkanath Tagore and the Age of Enterprise in Eastern India, Calcutta, 1981). --Ragib 18:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• More reference:Encyclopedia Britannica article. I am quoting from it: " In 1891 Tagore went to East Bengal (now in Bangladesh) to manage his family's estates at Shilaidah and Shazadpur for 10 years. There he often stayed in a houseboat on the Padma River (i.e., the Ganges River), in close contact with village folk, and his sympathy for their poverty and backwardness became the keynote of much of his later writing. Most of his finest short stories, which examine "humble lives and their small miseries," date from the 1890s and have a poignancy, laced with gentle irony, that is unique to him, though admirably captured by the director Satyajit Ray in later film adaptations. Tagore came to love the Bengali countryside, most of all the Padma River, an often-repeated image in his verse. During these years he published several poetry collections, notably Sonar Tari (1894; The Golden Boat), and plays, notably Chitrangada (1892; Chitra). Tagore's poems are virtually untranslatable, as are his more than 2,000 songs, which remain extremely popular among all classes of Bengali society.". Bengal was united at that time, and later was parititioned into West and East Bengal, later Bangladesh. Tagore's ancestors came from Eastern parts (see references above) and he spent his early years in East Bengal, now Bangladesh. Then why is it so difficult to accept Tagore as parts of Bangladeshi heritage? Please remember that out of 200 million Bengali people, Bangladeshi's constitute 150 million or 75%. Tagore's song
  Amar Shonar Bangla is our national anthem, and Tagore's work is considered an integral part of Bangladeshi heritage. Therefore please consider these facts and stop the one-sided edits on the category. --Ragib
  18:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• PS: I asked for discussing it here 4 times, each time someone reverted my edits to the category without bothering to talk about it. Isn't it contrary to wikipedia's norms? --Ragib 18:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Rabindranath was never a Bangladeshi. He was Indian always. In addition, just because he wrote the national anthem does not make him a Bangladeshi. Today, if Bangladesh accepts a song by A R Rehman as the national anthem, would you consider A.R.Rehman as a Bangladeshi? No,!!! Also, Rabindranath was a Hindu figure because he was reformer in Hinduism. The Brahmo Samaj is basically a reformist movement in Hinduism. It does not have enough theology to stand separately as a religion. For instance, in religions, usually religious scriptures are revealed to certain chosen people by the God however that didn't happen in Brahmon Samaj. It was just a bunch of rich people didn't like the age-long tradition of Hinduism, which was obstructing them in their business and so, they tried to change the tradition to something that is more economic and acceptable to the British, who were pouring money into the economy. However, Rabindranath and some other people took this movement used it as a method to reform the very conservative base of Hinduism in Bengal. Therefore, yes, he is a Hindu figure.

Dubious reasoning, at best. Under your reasoning, Tagore is not an Indian either, he died before India as an independent nation came to existence. A.R. Rehman is not a Bengali, so the logic doesn't apply. Anyway, you are assuming that the category "X poet" should apply to only people from country X. As I pointed out before, Tagore spent most of his early formative years in East Bengal, and the culture/region motivated him to a great extent. Bengal, as a united region, was culturally enriched by Tagore, and his legacy influences the culture of Bengalis. Rabindranath's music, philosophy and literature influences Bangladeshi culture to this day. So, I stand by the classification. Thanks. --Ragib 15:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The word, "India" has always been used to refer to the people of South-Asia or India by the British. Therefore, doesn't matter if India was an independent country or not, the people of India were referred to as Indians. In addition, there was no such word as "Bangladeshi" before Rabindranath died. Yes, by referring to "Bangladesh" the whole united Bengal used to be referred but the citizens of the united Bengal was referred to as "Bengalis" not "Bangladeshis"! Therefore, he cannot be referred to as Bangladeshis as the word arose after the independence of Bangladesh. However, as mentioned earlier, the world "Indian" was used to refer to the British India and that existed when Tagore was alive.

What are all the question marks? Hyacinth 21:17, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where do you see the question marks? One possibility is that your browser is not unicode compliant, and therefore you cannot see the name of the poet written in his native Bengali language. I am able to see the article clear of any question marks, so I guess you need to use a unicode compliant browser. Thanks. --Ragib 21:43, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I originally viewed the article in Firefox 1.0. In Internet Explorer 6.0, rather than question marks I see rectangles. IE is a very common browser, is there a setting I need to change or an addition I need to download? Hyacinth 29 June 2005 22:34 (UTC)

Ok, then I guess you need a Bangla unicode font. Here is a link where you can download Bangla unicode fonts. Thanks. --Ragib 29 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Dwarakanath was a Brahmo???? This article needs serious upgrading. --ppm 00:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no mention of the famous the T-E Conversation.So Sad.I cannot edit right now,for I dont have much insight to Tagore's philosophy.--Sahodaran 13:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Tagore was influential in the creation of the progressive British educational foundation Dartington Hall and the subsequently created Dartington College of Arts in Totnes, Devon, England (really a degree granting university). Shame we can't have more about this on the main page. Autumnleaf 23:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Wondering if it is now time for cutting down the article a bit.--67.80.150.102 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

We could do that. Of course, if we did, we can forget about ever putting this up for FAC. Saravask 14:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, what I meant by the above was that I'm planning on systematizing and organizing the article's contents. I just ordered a thick autobiography that should fuel the creation of one or more subarticles. Much of the contents here will then likely be shunted into thost daughters. The book is late, however, which is why I'm continuing to delay on finishing this article for FAC. Until then, no one should be removing or deleting large blocks of content. It will all be organized in due time. Saravask 00:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Juan Ramón Jiménez was not an Argentinean. He was rather a Spaniard. Someone should correct that.

Done ([3]). Saravask 20:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking much better now --ppm 18:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Tagore came to USA on November 1912, to visit his son Rathindranath. He was here when he got the news of his nobel prize. He also used Urbana as a home base to visit various places in USA. I think these facts can be added to the article. There is actually a house in Urbana where Tagore stayed for a year or so. For references see the Urbana Tagore center page. --Ragib 18:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll put ref/info in tomorrow. Saravask 23:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Great recent work. A few comments. 1. "As a result, he won the nobel prize"..."as a result" seems unnecessary 2. Its "Bhanu Singho", not "Bhanu Singh". --ppm 06:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; the fixes have been made ([4]). Yet (oddly) Robinson & Dutta (1995) spell it "Bhanu Singh" (without the "o"). Still, I'll take your word on the spelling. Saravask 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The only reason of that I can think of that is this. The main work he wrote using this psuedonym is "Bhanu Singher Padaboli" (rough translation: The poems of Bhanu Singho). Now due to attachment "er" at the end of Bhanu Singho (which means "of"), the vowel "o" gets suppressed while pronouning it. But as far as the psuedonym itself goes, I am quite sure it is Bhanu Singho.--ppm 18:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I looked at the article again. First of all, the work is truly great. I thank all editors for this. Now, here are some more comments (sorry for being lame and just restricting myself to "commenting" :D):
1. Why does the very first sentence of the article have Kazi Nazrul in it? The lead should mention only Tagore (the Nazrul, article, rightly, has only Nazrul in the lead).
2. I have some semi-well-formed concerns about the lead. For example lets look at the sentence "all the while maintaining an anti-nationalist, anti-non-cooperation, and internationalist stance". Being a Bengali, I immediately know what this abt, but I was trying to get into a non-bengali shoe, and wondered if one can get confused a bit. We read "anti-nationalist", only to be informed later that he has written TWO "national" songs. I know this can be consolidated (but will take more space than the lead allows). Again, he is anti-non-cooperation, but called Gandhi "mahatmaji" (as fas as I know, he mainly disliked the "Charka"), people might start wondering, "Whats wrong with this dude?"--ppm 19:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed reference to Nazrul (thanks), but I must disagree with your second point. This ambivalent attitude is central to Tagore's relationship with Gandhi and India. It's that confusion on his part that caused Indian nationalists to try to assassinate Tagore when he visited San Francisco (they viewed him (because of his opposition to "the cult of the Charka") as an agent working for the British). Saravask 21:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

But if you want, we can condense it. :-) Saravask 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It looks great now. I agree that the issue should be addressed. I haven't read it recently, but the politics section hopefully does that.--ppm 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On "Bhanu" (:D), this article later uses the spelling Bhanu Simha (in early life). That is kind of reasonable. I am okay with Singho or Simha, but the o/a/aw sound at the end is crucial. Minor point, anyway.--ppm 00:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Stumbled across a interesting piece of information while websurfing for complete unrelated reason:

"the Czech Indiologist Vincent Slesny was the first European person to translate Rabindranath Tagore from the original into a European language, the first European or westerner ever."

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/77431 --ppm 06:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks — it has been added ([5]). Saravask 06:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, first of all really nice work been done here. I hope you guys get this article to FA status soon. I am concerned about the length of this article though. It seems to be going up everytime I look at it. --Blacksun 06:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

very nice..one of the best biographical articles i have seen on wikipedia gunslotsofguns 12:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the works section can be shortened quite a bit, especially since the current main article is mostly a copy/paste of what we have here.

1. In poetry, I would consider removing this entire section: In Dui Bigha Jomi ("A Strip of Land"), Tagore explores the plight of a sharecropper whose meager parcel of farmland is taken over — using falsified papers — by a moneylender; the poem concludes: "rajar hosto kore shomosto kangaler dhon churi" ("it is the king's hand that steals from the downtrodden"). Sonar Tori also contains Hing Ting Chhot. Although comic in form, it illuminates what Tagore saw as Bengali society's crippling lack of vision, originality, and wisdom: durbodh ja chhilo kichu hoye gelo jol, shunno akasher moto ottonto nirmol ("Oh yes, now all has been explained, like the empty expanse of the open sky"). This can be replaced with a short summary sentence that says something like "Tagore's poetry, varying in style from formal to comic, dealt with social, economic, and political issues of the time."
2. In short story section, I would not even TOUCH the first paragraph. It is soooo beautiful. Please leave it like it is as it really describes the writing very well. However, I think the second paragraph is where the cutting can be done. This: "Tagore's Golpoguchchho ("Bunch of Stories") remains among the most popular fictional works in Bangla literature. Its continuing influence on Bengali art and culture cannot be overstated; to this day, Golpoguchchho remains a point of cultural reference. Golpoguchchho has furnished subject matter for numerous successful films and theatrical plays, and its characters are among the most well known to Bengalis. The acclaimed film director Satyajit Ray based his film Charulata ("The Lonely Wife") on Nashtanir ("The Broken Nest"). This famous story has an autobiographical element to it, modelled to some extent on the relationship between Tagore and his sister-in-law, Kadambari Devi. Ray has also made memorable films of other stories from Golpoguchchho, including Samapti, Postmaster and Monihara, bundling them together as Teen Kanya ("Three Daughters")." should be replaced by a short statement like, "Tagore's Golpoguchchho ("Bunch of Stories") remains among the most popular fictional works in Bangla literature, and has provided subject matter for numerous successful films and theatrical plays like acclaimed film director Satyajit Ray's film Charulata." This sentence can be merged with the ending of the first paragraph.
3. I think the final paragraph of the short stories can be shortened without sacrificing important details. For example, "Atithi is another poignantly lyrical Tagore story. Tarapada, a young Brahmin boy, catches a boat ride with a village zamindar. It turns out that he has run away from his home and has been wandering around ever since. The zamindar adopts him, and finally arranges a marriage to his own daughter. The night before the wedding Tarapada runs away again. does not tell me anything relevant about the story. Sure it sounds interesting but is just a dry description. Either take it out or replace it with a brief statement about the point of the story. In the same manner, I think you should stick to the message of the story without going into the details about character and plot of the story in the remainder of the paragraph. That will definitely help shave off 6-7 lines. --Blacksun 02:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Great advice. I've done the first two of these, and will take care of the rest when I finish my rewrite of "Works". Saravask 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Right now, I'm studying "Short stories" and "Poetry" (the two bloated/problem sections still remaining) to see how they can be better-written. If I can't figure out what to do with them, then I'll just keep what we have now and shorten it using the thrid suggestion you made. Saravask 18:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

About this recent change, is their such a denomination? --67.80.150.102 04:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

scholarly speaking, yes. (I believe).--Blacksun 06:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• In the lead, Ultimately, the loss of Tagore's wife and four children led him to probe death's nature, mostly in his later works. Yet his life's work — Visva-Bharati University — endured.. Why this "yet"? I mean it tends to indicate as if the death of his wife and 4 children could somehow have caused the demise of Visva-Bharati, however, it did not happen. This is a very minor issue, but , I think the sentence structure here could be slightly modified. I myself am not sure if I could make the point clear!!
• After undergoing his upanayan coming-of-age rite at age eleven, Tagore and his father left Calcutta.... Will it be better with a bracket? Like this : ...upanayan (coming-of-age rite) at age... Or may be a wikilink?
• Nirjharer Svapnabhanga: if the spelling is from the some source, it's ok. Otherwise better spelling is swapnabhanga.
• with more than half the stories of the three-volume Galpaguchchha — a collection of eighty-four stories — written. With irony and emotional weight, they — including Sonar Tari (1894), Chitra (1896), and Katha O Kahini (1900) — depicted a wide range of Bengali lifestyles, especially village life. : But Sonar Tari is a poetry, Chitra is a drama and Katha O Kahini is a kind of stories in verse. Please check.

A fantastic article. Just waiting to see it become an FA. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 04:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Took care of everything except the last point. As I explained below, I didn't write most of "Short stories" and "Poetry". I'm going to overhaul these w/ new sources. Saravask 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is the adjective majic-realist for Valmiki-Pratibha coming from the reference given?

No — initially, it seemed like an obvious inference to make; upon reading it again, it seems much closer to

original research

than I previously thought. Everything else is as stated by the source.

• Sonar Tori (the collection) is being given a lot of importanc, perhaps too much?

Yes. I didn't write most of the content under "Works" (I mostly just copyedited and re-organized). I'm working on re-writing "Poetry" and "Short stories" with better sources, like I rewrote "Theatrical ..." and "Novels ...". Hopefully this issue will be taken care of by then.

• "Yet, Tagore's music is inseparable from his literature" -- why "yet"?

It has been removed.

• Tagores "near total eclipse" (a phrase from Amartya Sen) is not discussed at all. This seems important. --ppm 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments. It was added under "Impact", grouped together with the sentence describing his controversy. Saravask 22:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that fragment. Thanks for the continual work of great quality on the article. You'll probably get to it, but the sentence that contains that fragment "near total eclipse" still seems unstaisfactory. Tagore's decline in west was due as much to a declined appreciation of his literature as it was for the controversies mentioned. Many western critics at some point simply stopped thinking his literature any good. --ppm 01:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've read about this. I will need to add a sentence or two about it. Saravask 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Would be cool if this article goes on "today's featured article" for May 7th.--Blacksun 15:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Why now (syncretic monotheist)? This is confusing.--ppm 16:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's the most accurate/trite wording I could think of, and at any rate users who don't know those terms are only one click away from finding out. Saravask 18:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

given the bad state of the Brahmo article itself, the link (strained as it is) of Brahmo samaj with Hinduism is even more obfuscated now. Otherwise I am okay with the desc--ppm 20:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been modified again to include "Hindu" ([6]). Thanks. Saravask 04:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "A week after their 6 November 1924 arrival in Buenos Aires, Argentina,[29] an ill Tagore moved into the Villa Miralrío .." Why "their"? whose? Do you mean Tagore and Ocampo? This pronoun seems to have no preceeding noun.

• "There, he wrote his Hibbert Lectures for the University of Oxford, which dealt with the "idea of the humanity of our God, or the divinity of Man the Eternal") and spoke at London's annual Quaker gathering". A btcket is either extra, or, missing. Please see.
• The play Dak Ghar (The Post office) is mentioned twice in "Theatrical pieces". However, the names appear different: Once Dak Ghar, and again, Dakghar. The english names also differ by the addition of "the". Please see.--Dwaipayanc 19:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I made the fixes ([7]); thanks for your help. Saravask 04:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been

Sorry, but I beg to differ with your judgement. Just because the people against the portrayal of Tagore "left" wikipedia do not give you the rights to carry out such a conclusion. This article is about Tagore, not his wife or kids. Tagore is from what is currently known as India. Therefore, he is not a Bangladeshi poet. Therefore, please stop trying to portray him like that! I say before this issue is resolved, he should not be portrayed as Bangladeshi. !Hikingdom 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Then he can't be termed as Indian either!! Tagore is a Bengali poet. The region of Bengal is now divided between India and Bangladesh, but Tagore died way before that. Tagore is from Bengal and his family estates were distributed between the eastern and western parts. Now, parts of his family estates fell in West Bengal and parts fell in East. Culturally, the Bengali literature and life is deeply influenced by Tagore. This includes both the parts of Bengal that fell inside India and that what is now Bangladesh. Thanks. --Ragib 00:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree with you that TAgore has influenced through his writing in both Bengal. That's why he is liked by people from both Bengal and that's why he is considered a Bengali poet. However, as I said earlier, let's not get into philosophical issues here. Tagore was named an Indian poet a way before India came into being. For instance, he won the nobel prize for literature as an "indian" writer. Therefore, he can be considered an Indian but Bangladesh came into being a way after. There was no country named "Bangladesh" when Rabindranath was alive but the name "India" was used to refer to the geographical region of South-Asia. Therefore, Rabindranath was an Indian poet. Now, legally Rabindranath is not considered a "Bangladeshi" by the Bangladesh government but "Rabindranath" is considered Indian by Indian government. Therefore, let's not drift away from the recognized matter here. BTW, my personal issue with Bangladesh has nothing to do with this categorizing issue. I would appreciate if you could kindly stop presuming too much. I am just trying to show you all that let's stick with legal matters here. Let's not try to disorient the readers of wikipedia with what Bengalis think. Thank you. Have a nice Day Hikingdom 01:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let me give you a precedent regarding this. Iqbal is exactly in a similar scenario .. he died in 1938, while British India was still a single entity. Now, if you look at Category:Iqbal, you'd see it includes both Category:Indian poets and Category:Pakistani poets. Under your logic, he can't be in Category:Pakistani poets, right? Thanks. --Ragib 01:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why Iqbal, what about Nazrul? Nazrul, eventhough born in geographical area of India is considered a Bangladeshi poet because in 1975 Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman brought him to Bangladesh and gave him Bangladeshi citizenship. Therefore, legally he is a Bangladeshi. Anyways, you are welcome to argue that on that basis with Pakistanis. I don't know if Iqbal is legally considered a "Pakistani citizen" by Pakistani government or not. If he is, then the Pakistanis have the rights to call him a Pakistani. Therefore, I cannot argue on that. However, Rabindranath is not a legal citizen of Bangladesh. Nowhere it is mentioned that Tagore is a Bangladeshi poet other than wikipedia. I understand that Bengalis (west and east) would not mind calling him a Bangladeshi poet. Nevertheless, the law does mind. Tagore would be an illegal immigrant in Bangladesh if he was alive today. LOL Hikingdom 01:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

concerning "crude emergence" of modernity and realism in Bengali poetry in 1930's. Again my question is the notion of crudity coming from the reference? Even if it is, and though it might be true to some extent, a blanket statement seems inappropriate. "The" Jibanananda Das was active then, so was Sudhindranath, Bishnu Dey, to mention a few luminaries.--ppm 05:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is directly from the reference (Dutta and Robinson 1995); they use that very blanket statement. Alternative wording is welcome. Thanks. Saravask 05:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My heartiest congratulations to

Also ppm, Ragib, Dwaipayanc, and Blacksun. Looks like we've just written the first South Asian literature-related FA on the English Wikipedia. Looks like it won't be long before Bangladesh is also promoted. My congratulations to all the Bengalis (or Bengal-lovers) working here. :-) Saravask 06:57, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

CONGRATS.--Dwaipayanc 11:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!! Guys, I have requested this to be a today's featured article for May 7th [8]. --Blacksun 14:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats to Saravask, and every other editor of this beautiful article--ppm 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Just notices the TFA status... congrats! --hydkat 12:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going there on 7th May. Great.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome!--ppm 21:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to add an external link to the World of Biography entry

• Rabindranath Tagore Biography probably the most famous portal of biography to this article. Does anybody have any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghuvir (talk • contribs)

Sorry I believe that link is considered a spam in wikipedia and anyways their "biography" seems to be one paragraph long. It adds nothing to the article. -Blacksun 14:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The biography does have several sections beyond the initial paragraph including a timeline but there are problems with the site. Most importantly, it does not cite any sources for the information portrayed, which means it could quite easily provide uninformed readers with inaccurate information. Instead the website claims copyright, which could be interpreted as copyright over all the material there. Also, by the link that I found here this website has only been operational for a short time. The website has a low Alexa ranking and it has not yet been archived at the Internet Archive. It's difficult to see how it can be famous after existing for a few weeks even if it is a relaunch. The website which it has been relaunched from ceased operating in late 2003 so it is worth asking whether this is not just advertising for the new website, especially when you look at the user's contribution history and notice that the same request has been made on approximately 35 articles? Yours cynically, :) Green Giant 02:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Is he then "Sir Rabindranath Tagore" and should the first line call him such? Srnec 01:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No, he renounced knight hood in 1919, following the Jaliwanwalabag massacre. Thanks. --Ragib 01:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I just got to that part. Srnec 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, a knighthood once accepted cannot be unilaterally cancelled by its recipient. It can only be rescinded by the crown, which as far as I'm aware never occurred in this case. If a knight "renounces" his knighthood, that means he makes a personal decision to remove any postnominal letters and cease referring to himself as "Sir"; officially his knighthood remains. The timeline is slightly misleading where it says he "unsuccessfully renounced" his knighthood. He did indeed renounce it, but his knighthood was never rescinded. JackofOz 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Does that mean that he should be referenced as such at the top of the article or is there a policy on that? Srnec 03:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what our policy on that is, but I recommend we do not call him "Sir Rabindranath". In accordance with his wishes, the world generally ceased calling him Sir after 1919. As far as he was concerned, morally he was no longer a knight, despite the technicalities. JackofOz 03:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The post-1919 media, scholarly research, and everything else has no reference to him as "Sir". Thanks. --Ragib 04:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. But how, JackofOz, can one "morally" be a knight (or not)? No need to answer that, I know what you meant. Srnec 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I mean was he born in what today is the Republic of India? I understand he was but I think it should be made more clear in the beginning of the article. For someone with little knowledge about India, the reference to Bengal is not enough; Also his birthplace does not appear explicitly. All of this I think should appear immediately after the dates of birth and death. 217.130.121.152 06:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Birth place has been now clarified in the beginning of the second paragraph of the lead.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The answer is a bit confusing ... he was from the Bengal region of

Republic of India in the 1947 parition, while his Shilaidoho Kuthibari, and the places where he dwelt in early years, fell inside East Bengal, which was renamed East Pakistan, and later became Bangladesh. So, technically, he was not born or died in Republic of India, but I guess people can generally understand and term the region as India. After Dwaipayan's clarification, I guess the issue is settled clearly. --Ragib

06:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think India and Republic of India are the same thing. Such a interpretation means nobody born before 1947 can possibly be "Indian", which is ridiculous--ppm 18:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So do you agree with Dwaipayanc's rewrite saying he was born in

British India? Saravask

19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Depends on what it means by agreeing. It's not wrong, but unhelpful, specially regarging an artist. The political status of India at that time seems somewhat uninteresting. anyway, I am not to picky about this. But consider "Aryabhatta was born in (insert name of ruler) India"...sounds redundant to me--ppm 19:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little confused as to why the audio file of Rabindranath's pronunciation is in an Indian-accented English instead of in either native Bangla or native English. How helpful is it to hear the name pronounced this way? I would suggest that the Bangla pronunciation be given, unless someone can justify the current choice. --SameerKhan 07:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There are two guides kindly contributed by Ambuj.Saxena: Image:Rabindranath Tagore-pronunciation.ogg (anglicized) and Image:Rabindranath Thakur.ogg (native Bangla). Are you sure you're not talking about the former? Saravask 07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

You were right; I only heard the Anglicized version. I guess my confusion was that clicking on the IPA transcription of the name links to a sound file (the Anglicized one) that doesn't correspond to the transcription itself. Maybe this could be changed so that the Anglicized version is linked on something other than the IPA?

As another thought, and this might be too picky... the second sound file is of course closer to the Bangla pronunciation of the name, but it still sounds a little non-Bengali. I feel like I'm being mean saying this (as I am not a fully-native speaker either), but could we have a recording made by a native Bengali speaker? I could record a native speaker saying it but I don't know how to upload sound files on Wikipedia. Thanks! --SameerKhan 07:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't speak Bangla either — I hope one of the other contributors to this article can either confirm that the second file is the correct Bangla version or step forward to create an .ogg file with native pronunciation. Saravask 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know how ro do the audios. May be Ragib can do. Do I need any software to do this? Checking out the procedure and seeing if I can be of help. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the procedure either. You can contact Ambuj.Saxena or Srikeit, both of whom have done many .ogg files. Saravask 08:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone! --SameerKhan 09:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Audio recording done. Srikeit will upload it very soon, after conversion to .ogg format. Expect the new Bangla pronounciation in afew minutes. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Uploaded the audio file & linked it. BTW must appreciate the excellent work you guys have done on the article. Thanks for letting me be part of this FA!

Thanks

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 10:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Anglicised IPA transcription

I respect the amount of work that has gone into documenting the authentic pronunciation of Tagore's name, but I would strongly advocate giving precedence to the anglicised transcription (/rə'bɪndrəˌnat tə'gɔr/ or /'takur/) or something close to it. Not because the anglicised (British or North American) pronunciation is in any way privileged, but simply because English-speakers unfamiliar with Indian English are those most in need of pronunciation guidance here. The narrow IPA transcription currently used ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ]) contains symbols that are meaningless to non-experts, and in fact might well suggest an incorrect pronunciation. Relegating the anglicised transcription to an footnote is unhelpful, as the average user will not suspect that it exists.

Note that many users (perhaps a majority) cannot play .ogg audio files.

The practical issue seems to be a desire to avoid cluttering the head of the article with competing phonetic transcriptions. I agree, and the approach relegating the more arcane data to footnotes seems reasonable. I would argue that a broad, phonemic transcription comprehensible to average English speakers is the key piece of data here. However, before making any further edits, I thought I would raise the issue here.--Chris 05:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes the anglicised transcription (/rə'bɪndrəˌnat tə'gɔr/) should be up there in the lead, as that is how english speaking users will pronounce. The audio link to the present IPA transcription of [ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] gives a rendition of anglicised pronounciation, in a south Asian accent. While, the audio link from the Bengali script name now gives a Bangla pronounciation (as we Bengali speaking people peonounce the name), which is something like Robindronath Ţhakur.

However, there should not be any problem with .ogg file. It can be played in both Winamp and Windows Media Player, the softwares that majority of people use. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that the majority of audio files representing the pronunciation of names involve the native, non-English pronunciation. IPA transcriptions of these files are normally provided as the links to these files, and they include symbols which would be unfamiliar to someone who is not well-versed in IPA. I don't think there's anything wrong with having only the native pronunciation, and a phonemic (with respect to Bangla and not English) transcription available. This is basically what we have now. Compare this with, for example, the article on Copenhagen. The transcription includes unfamiliar IPA symbols and represents the Danish pronunciation of Copenhagen, and makes no mention of the English pronunciation (until much later in the article). This seems to be common in articles dealing with European and Asian names, and I think we should follow suit. --SameerKhan 08:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I see that you are correct about this being a common practice in Wikipedia, but I don't agree that there's nothing wrong with it. There is one huge thing wrong with it, namely, that it omits important information. What a Canadian schoolchild, for example, needs to know about the pronunciation of Rabindranath Tagore is whether the -th represents [t] or [θ], whether Rabindranath is stressed on the second or third syllable, whether Tagore has three syllables, Italian-style, that sort of thing. If Wikipedia is intended as a reference work for a general audience, and I believe it is, then these are the most relevant points.

I suspect the WP practice of favouring exotic or narrowly phonetic transcriptions over broad, phonemic transcriptions reflects the tendency of scholarly (or apparently scholarly) data to drive out apparently non-scholarly data in articles. Generally a good thing, I suppose, but it these cases it isn't.

Here's an example, by the way, somewhat parallel to Tagore.

"Fernando de Bulhões (pron. IPA [fɨɾ.'nɐ̃.du dɨ bu.'ʎõj̃ʃ])"

What proportion of average users (meaning, non-Portuguese speakers) will know how to pronounce Bulhões? What proportion are helped by the transcription provided? Most and few.

The alternative of putting a Standard English phonemic transcription at the end of the first paragraph is not too bad, though my second choice.--Chris 14:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I've discovered that there is style guideline on this issue [9]. The relevant points are as follows:

• "For ease of understanding, fairly broad IPA transcriptions are usually used."
• "When transcribing foreign names, you may write two transcriptions: the native pronunciation and English pronunciation. The English transcription must always be first. If the native name is different than the English name, the native transcription must be after the native name."

Based this guideline, I'm going to broaden transcription of the Indian English audio file ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] → [roˈbindroˌnat taˈgur] -- note that narrowly phonetic [k] maps to phonemic [g] here). I'll move the narrow transcription to a footnote. I'll also provide [taˈgɔ(r)] as an alternative (more thoroughly anglicised) pronunciation of Tagore.--Chris 17:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above points. I just want to make sure, though, that people know that the term "broad transcription" does not necessarily mean English transcription; it just means keeping in the minimal information needed to derive the phonetic pronunciation given the phonological patterns of the language. What we have now ([ɹobin̪d̪ɾonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ]), is exactly the broad phonemic transcription for the native Bengali pronunciation. Well, that's a lie. [ɹobind̪ɹonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] would be the broad phonemic version for Bengali. [roˈbindroˌnat taˈgur] works for the broad phonemic version for English. Of course, a narrow phonetic transcription would be far more complicated than these two versions. Anyhow, I just wanted to make sure everyone was okay with [ɹobind̪ɹonat̪ʰ ʈʰakuɹ] as the broad transcription of the non-English pronunciation. --SameerKhan 08:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel really nice to see this page's elevation to the status of FA. I congratulate the team of editors making this possible. Regards. --Bhadani 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Theatrical Works section, there's a sentence "Another is Tagore's Chandalika (Untouchable Girl), which was modeled on an ancient Buddhist legend describing how Ananda — the Gautama Buddha's disciple — asks water of an Adivasi ("untouchable") girl." I was wondering if there's an error here in the phrase, "asks water of an Adivasi girl." I believe the author meant "pani-prarthi" in Bengali, which mean "seeking the hand of someone in marriage." I don't think it can be translated to "asks the water of." However, I myself haven't read Chandalika, so I'm not sure what exactly happens. Could someone with relevant knowledge please look into it? Thanks! Congratulations on all those who worked on this article. Waking up in the morning and seeing Tagore's article as the FA in English Wikipedia was a great pleasure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eendrani (talk • contribs)

The story is much more complicated than that, though not all the details are fresh in my mind. here's a summary. He (a celibate monk) only asks water of her, while she, starstruck, seeks to bewitch him into loving her. Otherwise, we're glad you like the article! Saravask 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

--Greasysteve13 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article making it to the front page on his birthday. :) Green Giant 15:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone moved the article. Can we find it? -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 22:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I get it. Protection is/was/is still a good idea. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 22:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging histories while this is on the main page probably isn't the best idea; was there a good reason? --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 22:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as in the repeated posting of a phone number of an editor. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 22:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• The article, I think, gives too much importance and space to Gitanjali and Ghare Baire and mentions them as Tagore's major work right in the intro. Well, an overwhelming majority of Bengali literary critics consider Gora to be his best work of fiction/novel, not Ghare Baire. Many of them also do not consider Gitanjali as among the best of Tagore's poetry , despite the Nobel Prize. I think at least Ghare Baire in the intro should be replaced by Gora. Again in the Novel & Non-fiction section, Gora gets a one-line passing mention, while almost a whole para was devoted to the synopsis of Ghare Baire. This should be the other way round.
• Kkhudito Pashan doesn't reflect Tagore's concern for the poor and downrodden, the theme of K.P. is much different. --Monmajhi 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Saravask 01:35, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added Gora to the lead. For the other comments, could you list your sources? Saravask 01:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I second unsigned's concern abt khudito pashan. In fact, Atithi is not about downtrodden either, (KP is a ghost story), even in Kabuliwala, though the Kabuliwala is infact poor, that is not the point of the story (it is Paternal love and pain of growing up)--ppm 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

However, as an article in English, I think the emphasis on Gitanjali and Ghare Baire is alright. What Bengali scholars think (even if rightly) is not necessarily what we must present here. That borders on original research--ppm 04:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

>> What's wrong with 'Bengali scholars' ? :-) What's wrong with what they think ? Why should it be 'original research' ? How many non-Bengali Tagore scholars are there compared to the number of Bengali scholars, or, how many non-Bengali books/publications on Tagore or Tagore's works are out there compared to the number/volume of books/publications in Bengali ?

Gora may or may not be as popular as Ghare Baire or Chokher Bali since it doesn't deal with popular/sensational/accessible topics like the latter two, and unlike the latter two there is probably no recent movie rendition of Gora, yet it's almost universally considered his fictional (novel) masterpiece or magnum opus. Even Tagore thought so. It's a philosphical and deeply serious novel attempting to reach the soul of the nation and discover the roots of its current malaise, especially through delving deep into various issues of a particular religious community of that time (this may make it a bit inaccessible to foreigners, I admit). Yet, the basic theme and goal of the story is as universal as you can get : upliftment from all sorts of parochialism, tribalism (in a broader sense), etc to a belief in larger humanity; from divisiveness and seclusion to a bigger human unity. This novel may or may not suitable for popular entertainment though : it's very cerebral unlike the others. Yet, almost all serious critics concur that it IS tagore's best novel or magnum opus in terms of his novels. In fact it is often referred as an "Epic" novel.

These are not merely my views, or original research. You'll find all of the above in most serious books on Bangla literature/fiction or it's history.

----Monmajhi 12:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand. But though I surely know (and most Bengali scholars agree) that Sonar Tori is a superior work, Gitanjali (which won him the Nobel prize) must get mention first. It his most well known work world wide. Similarly, due to Satyajit's film and the universality of the topic (NOT superiority) Ghare Baire is undoubtedbly the more well known work and hence the first thing to mention for a english reader (higher possibility of recognition).--ppm 17:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Now that I have mentioned Satyajit, comsider the lead to his article containing Charulata, and not Pather Panchali (there is widespread conviction of the superiority of Charulata, even Ray though so).--ppm 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify ppm, he is meaning the intro/lead of the article Satyajit Ray contains Pather Panchali, and not Charulata, though Charulata is often considered superior. Am I correct, ppm? --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am suggesting that it would be wrong to put Charulata in the lead--ppm 19:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, if foreign/worldwide familiarity is the 'criterion' here. But in the main body of the article, especially in the dedicated sections, shouldn't we prioritize correctly ? Isn't it, or shouldn't it be, our duty to provide the correct information and views (majority view among the experts), instead of catering to or pampering the misled mistaken perceptions ? For example, while Ghare Baire gets mentioned and linked prominently in the intro, Gora can be given prioritized treatment inside the dedicated Novel & Non-fiction section. The same can be said about poetry, drama, etc. Don't you think if the 'familiarity' criterion is uniformly applied, then we should better leave this article to those who are supposed to read it, to write ? Think about it.

--Monmajhi 19:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Monmajhi. J\Hey Monmajhi, why do not you go ahead. But please remember to ptovide reliable verifieble sources. I do not know much about these things. But if the case is really so, importance of Gota Gora should be discussed in the pertinent subsection. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wholly concerned abt the lead. In the interior, you suggestion is a good one. In any case, it is impossible to be fair, why does the short story section have Haimanti but not, say, Khata? All we can do is to be ecclectic enough--ppm 20:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I have seen lot of writers claiming Shesher Kobita to be the best. Critical study of Tagore in Bengal is usually influenced a thousand other non-artistic factors, which I can't even begin to describe. My point is, I don't think the picture is as clear as Monmajhi is suggetsing. In any case, let's have a para on Gora, by all means--ppm 21:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just keep in mind that this is not a masters thesis. The article is already rather long - too much information could just mean not many will be interested in reading it. --Blacksun 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think a consensus was reached on the categories. But Hikingdom (talk · contribs) is removing the "Bangladeshi *" categories without showing any reason in the talk page. Please refrain from blanking categories without discussion. Thanks. --Ragib 00:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the thing, if Tagore is considered an Indian poet, in the same vain he is in the Bangladeshi poet category. Saravask has described his logic above quite well, and I don't see why this category is so much despised by Hikingdom (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Ragib 00:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dude, just because you can't spot it, doesn't mean I am not showing it. There has been enough discussion against "illegally" portraying Tagore as a Bangladeshi. Those arguments make more sense to me. Tagore is from currently what is known as India. Therefore, he is an Indian poet. We are talking about legal stuff here not philosophical ideas. Philosophically, I don't care what you all think but Tagore is an Indian poet as recognized by the world. Let's stick to the "scripts." Hikingdom 00:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Please define legal. "recognized by the world" is not "legal". One has to recongnize the ambiguities surrounding the people who live around the time of partition and make a judicious decision, not a passion-based one. --ppm 05:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Perfect would have been a British Indian poet. LoL. Hikingdom, you should go through the past discussions where it was decided that both Indian and Bangladeshi categories would be retained. Of course you can object, but please do not at once change the category.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not. I have discussed what i mean by legal in "Bangladesh X cats" discussion. Please check there first. People like Nazul eventhough born in the geographical area of India currently can be considered Bangladeshi because Nazrul has a Bangladeshi citizenship. However, Rabindranath does not have it. Infact, when Rabindranath was alive there was no Bangladesh but there was India as I mentioned several times in this discussion page. Therefore, we cannot call him a Bangladeshi. If you don't like this, I guess you are welcome to fight in the court. However, before legally Bangladeshi government announces tagore a bangladeshi citizen, he would remain Indian. Furthermore, shmitra, you just proved my point. We are not supposed to pass a passion-based judgement. Tagore, as a Bangladeshi would be a passion based judgement by the people, who love Tagore. However, to the outside world, he is an Indian. We need to stick to what is recognized legally all over the world. Please and thank you. Hikingdom 14:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Look above and you'll find a discussion mentioning the fact that "legally", you cannot renounce your nighthood unilaterally. Are you ready to support the title "Sir Rabindranath Tagore". Pls give a legal answer. Quote penal codes etc.--ppm 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

"Rabindranath was alive there was no Bangladesh but there was India" -- You are making a selective use of the words to suit your purpose. You define India as the historical, socio-geographical region that goes beyond its present political form, the Republic of India. And its a view I support (notice I was somewhat against the term British India as his birth place). But then again, so is Bangladesh. It is an ancient name, quite possibly even older than India (nobody has a clue where it came from). But here you chose to define Bangladesh as the state born in 1971. That's double standard.--ppm 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The name "Bangladesh" was used to refer to the whole united Bengal. Okay, I agree with you there. Now, look, there was nothing called, "Bangladeshi" at that time. The citizens of Bengal were known as "Bengali" not "Bangladeshi." The term, "Bangladeshi" was coined by Bangladesh in 1977 to give a separate identity to Muslim Bangladesh from "Hindu" WestBengal. Therefore, "Bangladeshi" is a very new term. However, citizens of India have always been known as "Indians." Now, look currently when we call someone "Indian" we mean, someone, who is from South-Asia but not a citizen of Pakistan, Bangladesh, SriLanka etc but India. Similarly, when we call someone Bangladeshi, we mean someone who is not a citizen of India, SriLanka, Pakistan but "Bangladesh." Rabindranath was NEVER a Bangladeshi citizen. Therefore, calling him a Bangladeshi would be morally wrong. There are good writers in Bangladesh like Jashimuddin, Jeebonanondo Das etc. Portray them as much as you want but let Tagore's soul rest in peace. :) Cheers. Hikingdom 20:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Still you don't answer the question ... when it comes to "Bangladesh" you refer to the modern state, while when it comes to "India", you are referring to the region. Please explain the double standard. Thanks. --Ragib 20:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, you claim that the term "Bangla desh" is an "invented" term!! Ever heard of Tagore's song "Aji Bangladesher Hridoy hote ..."? The entire region of Bengal (a term coined by the British) was called as "Bangla desh" from ancient times. Thanks. --Ragib 20:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

No I haven't heard that song. I am not saying "Bangladesh" is an invented term but "Bangladeshi" is. I am also not using a double standard. I agree with you that the word, "Bangladesh" has been used to refer to the geographical region of Bengal in the past like the word, "India." Therefore, I have no problem of calling him a "citizen of Bengal" or "Bengali" and a "citizen of India" or "Indian" as it was known earlier. I do have a problem of calling him a "Bangladeshi." The word, "Bangladeshi" is currently used to refer to the citizens of "East Bengal." Rabindranath was never a citizen of East Bengal, neither he was a citizen of west bengal. He was rather a citizen of the united Bengal and a citizen of India. Therefore, calling him a "WestBengali poet" would also be wrong like calling him a "Bangladeshi poet." Hikingdom 20:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Sorry, legally Tagore was NOT an Indian (neither a Bangladeshi). "Legal" means :- 1. of or relating to law; 2 a : deriving authority from or founded on law, etc etc (Merriam-Webster). Tagore lived and died in a British colony as a legal subject of the British Empire well before the state of India came into being in 1947.There was no Indian law before 1947. No Indian constitution. Even the legal state of India did not exist before that. Therefore, anything prior to 1947 cannot (especially during the Raj) be legally Indian, since, I repeat, there was NO Indian law at that time on which the legality of anything can be based or founded upon, there was ONLY British law. This I hope should put to rest the illegal use of legality and illegal debate on legality and legal stuff. The only way to change the facts, would be to invent a time machine and go back to the past and change the history. Until then...

2. If Nazrul can be called a Bangladeshi because he had a bangladeshi citizenship, and tagore cannot be because he did not have a Bangladeshi citizenship, then by the same token Tagore cannot be called an Indian because he did not have an Indian citizenship either. He was a subject of the British Monarch and an inhabitant of a colony, and never a citizen of India or of any other country.

Legally , Tagore was neither Indian nor Bangladeshi. If you want to call him anything other than a subject of the British Monarch, then I would say the only other thing you can call him (without being illegal again) is a Bengali. And perhaps also a great Human Being (infinitely superior to all of us Liliputs here bickering over his deadbody so that one party can take all of it :-), instead of genuinely appreciating his greatness or achievements ).

Personally, after watching this debate, it seems to me that I should rather stick to reading, listening, enjoying, appreciating and learning and enriching myself from his great works (which I've been doing for many years) rather than trying to bring down the great man to my level and possess him and gloat in doing so. I don't want to be the sand that's hotter than the Sun. Thank you very much.

--69.71.132.254 21:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the indian citizenship debate. I am a pretty flexible person and if anyone points out my mistake, I accept it. However, Rabindranath is a known Indian all over the places. You cannot just destroy that. For instance, the nobel prize site, [10], shows Rabindranath as an Indian, not a Bangladeshi. Even the list for nobel prize winners in wikipedia show Rabindranath's name as an Indian nobel prize winner [11]. As I said before, other than wikipedia, no credible source says that Rabindranath was a Bangladeshi. The government position on nobel prizes for Bangladesh does not include Tagore but India includes it. Rabindranath has always been known all over the world as an Indian even before the state of India legally was born. Since we have entered a "philosophical" debate, basically, anyone, who was from British India could be called an Indian. Now, when you call someone a "Bangladeshi" or "Pakistani" you actually put forward this notion that he is SPECIFICALLY from the geographic area of EastBengal or Pakistan, not anywhere else. Rabindranath was not from EastBengal. He was born in WestBengal and lived most of his life there and therefore, it would be unfair to say that Rabindranath was a "Bangladeshi" or "East Bangalee". In the case of Nazrul, it is different because as you pointed out, Nazrul was both legal citizens of India and Bangladesh and therefore, we can call him both. However, Rabindranath was not from EastBengal, he was from united India and united Bengal. Therefore, he is an Indian and a Bengali. I know that we can go round and round on this debate as we have been doing it for sometime. I think we just need to understand how Tagore is recognized all over the world. He is recognized as a Bengali and an Indian. Therefore, wikipedia should stick to that notion instead of trying to portray him as a Bangladeshi.Hikingdom 16:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

> I thought you wanted to stick to legality and legal stuff and didn't care about the philosophical aspect. Didn't you say that somewhere above ? Then why are you conveniently changing your position now and started 'philosophizing'?

Tagore was born in Kolkatta which is today part of India, not Bangladesh. There is absolutely no way that Tagore's indetity can be stretched to Bangladeshi when he never had any significant connections with territory that later became Bangladesh. He live in what is now west Bengal making him an Indian, not a Bangladeshi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindu soldier (talk • contribs)

To gauge consensus re inclusion of the "Bangladeshi X" cats. Saravask 05:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

No

1. I vote that Tagore is NOT a Bangladeshi as he never had any affiliation with Bangladesh. Even the nobel laureate community acknowledges that he is Indian NOT Bangladeshi. Hindu Soldier 16:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
2. For mentioned reasons, I vote NO. Hikingdom 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
3. for the prevailing of TRUTH, I vote NO. redenex 11:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Against - I think we should avoid categorising people by the country or region which exists now but did not exist back then. As an example I would point to Livy and Sallust who lived in what we call Italy, but back then was part of the "Roman State". Quite easily both of these writers could have been claimed as Italian historians but have actually been classified as Roman era historians. In the same manner, Tagore should be classified under a British Indian writers category, even if he didn't regard himself as British Indian. Green Giant 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• That is a rather flawed analogy. Tagore and independence were not separated in history by vast periods of time. Also, he was part of the freedom movement and idea of independent India was a solid concept during his lifetime. --Blacksun 03:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote. I totally agree with you that we need to categorize on the basis of the era that they lived on. I mean, we can't say how a long a state is going to survive but if you categorize them on the basis of the time, it offers a consistency. :-) Hikingdom 02:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment - did anybody else notice that User:Hindu soldier has made a grand total of two edits, and both of them on this talkpage. :P Green Giant 00:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ya, I wonder who it was. :P --Blacksun 21:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Checking the IP might reveal something. Hikingdom 23:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes

1. For reasons I and others listed above. Saravask 05:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
2. --Dwaipayan (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
3. As per Saravask. --Ragib 05:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the debate and its participants, I must point out that it is factually incorrect to include Tagore as anything "Bangladeshi," simply becoz the man did not live/work in what is today Bangladesh, and becoz B'desh was created after Tagore's death. A poll or consensus cannot change the reality.

With a cat of Bengali writer/poet, should be enough to play the uniting influence in Indian and B'deshi cultures that Tagore played. Rama's Arrow 06:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As important Tagore is to Bangladeshi culture, lemme point out that this is no different from calling Maharaja Ranjit Singh, an important king of Punjab, a Pakistani. This is simply not true. Rama's Arrow 06:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this poll needs a clarfication. This poll is just to gauge consensus. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, this poll should just have an idea of the consensus. Not necessarily implementing the concensus at once, though one may tend to do so! Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 06:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In response to the argument that Tagore then couldn't also be an Indian, lemme remind you that arguing there was no such thing as Indians is revisionist history. Everyone who lived in India during British rule called themselves Indian. Nobody called oneself "British-Indian" so don't event these concepts on WP just becoz of a seeming case of legality and POV issues. Besides, if Tagore himself identified as an Indian, that is enough. 06:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It is fair to describe

Jinnah as an Indian and a Pakistani, becoz he actually lived in Pakistan for a year. Tagore did not live in Bangladesh or East Pakistan for that matter. Rama's Arrow

06:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe how LOW these people can get to prove something! Now you are trying to change the fact on the basis of a poll? Offcourse you all will win because I am the one who is fighting against you five, who are so caught up in the paradigm that cannot see the laidout explanation. Look, you cannot change a fact on the basis of the popularity. If that was the case then Darwin's ideas can easily be proven wrong because majority of the people oppose it. I thought wikipedia encourages an intellectual community with intellectual discussion but sadly speaking you all are not showing it. Finding yourself cornered, now you are trying to "shut us up" by force! I have put forward many many words showing why and how Tagore cannot be considered a Bangladeshi but an Indian. I have provided rebuttal to each and every argument in favour of inclusion of Tagore as a Bangladeshi poet. I am not going to repeat them. However, this low approach of the editors have really stunned me!!! Hikingdom 06:31, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stick to arguments on content rather than ad-hominem comments, and also take a look at

WP:NPA. Thanks. --Ragib

06:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am sticking to the debate here. You are the one, who is taking initiatives here. I am saying come and let's debate. I am offering you a chance. By taking this approach, the proponents of inclusion of Bangladeshi category are accepting "defeat" and now using force. DO NOT accuse me of personal attacks. I am not making any personal attack, but I won't mind making one against u, but I understand the value of intellectual debate. Therefore, I am asking you all to debate with me instead of shutting me down using a poll. Shut me down with words and debate. As Rama's Arrow noted, you cannot prove something on the basis of popularity. I said it before that Bengalis won't mind calling him a Bangladeshi but that does not prove anything. In reality he wasn't a Bangladeshi as I have shown repeatedly. Therefore, come let's talk about this instead of using force. We have seen enough force in politics and but let's maintain an intellectual community here. Hikingdom 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldnt we call him Pakistani too considering Bangladesh was part of Pakistan for a while? *grabs some popcorn* --Blacksun 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if he gets categorized as a Bangladeshi writer, then should also be as a Pakistani writer. The reason is because the arguments that has been used in favour of inclusion of Tagore in Bangladeshi Category could also be used in favour of inclusion of Tagore in Pakistani Category. Hikingdom 03:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont care if you say born in India or Bangladesh or Pakistan or England but "born in British India" is rather retarded. Does the article on Gandhi state that he was born in "British Gujarat, British India"? I understand that this was some type of weird compromise but pick one and stick with it. Was he born in present day India or present day Bangladesh? Just say that he was born in <insert name of city> in present-day <insert name of country>. Where the hell am I supposed to buy my ticket to if I wanted to visit his birth place? I dont think my local airlines will know where British India is!! And regarding the entire hoopla you guys have going regarding whether he was Bangladeshi or Indian:

• Encarta calls him an Indian poet;
• Britannica calls him a Bengali poet but states that "He was highly influential in introducing the best of Indian culture to the West and vice versa, and he is generally regarded as the outstanding creative artist of modern India;"
• Nobel prize medals were reissued to the Indian government by Sweden's Nobel foundation in 2004.

--Blacksun 02:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rabindranath has been known as an Indian in all documents all over the world. Hikingdom 03:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we are both motivated by slightly different things. I actually dont really mind if he is categorized as part of Bangladeshi culture or whatever. It is bit silly to fight over who he belonged to. Don't you think? He belongs to humanity. But yes, we should strive for accuracy in Wikipedia. --Blacksun 04:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

These sorts of debates often arise when borders change, especially if unpleasantless was involved. It also sounds strange to say that Immanuel Kant was born in Russia, but that's what your principle would lead to. According to Wikipedia, and probably most writers, he was born in East Prussia, which, like British India, no longer exists. Deciding on the most reasonable course is a matter of judgement, and people will frequently disagree.--Chris 17:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think their was a political entity called British India (as in the british government did not refer to their Indian colony as British India). So, the analogy with Eastern Prussia which is geographic in nature does not really work. I could be wrong. Also, I have never heard of anyone else being stated as born in British India before. We are inventing our own terms here which is not what wikipedia is supposed to do. --Blacksun 20:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think better would be ,"...in Kolkata (then Calcutta) in the present state of West Bengal, India ( then a part of the British empire) ". Any comments?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. I had a problem with the Calcutta (kolkata) part too as it goes against the naming of Kolkata in the main article. --Blacksun 07:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The "controversy" seems to go on! I find this funny and an instinctive desire to not get into, but anyway. Can we just remove references to bengal altogether and just go with "Indian poet"? "Indian Bengali" means what, specially since it was seemingly established there was only one kind around at that time?--ppm 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Shmitra. It is also incorrect to link to Indian, because that points to the modern country. Before the fireworks are set, I'd request anyone to go look at the discussion above. I made a compromise there with my point of view, and it seemed that a consensus was reached. Sneaking in adjectives is not really a good idea. --Ragib 04:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I mean. There will always be an issue of arguing whether being an "Indian" something in pre-1947 days is the same as being an

Bengali poet. So, keeping that as an adjective sounds the most logical and devoid of problematic issues. --Ragib

04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, back to Shmitra's original point, upto and 6 years after Tagore died in 1940, the usage of the word "Indian Bengali" is wrong ... it is something like "British English" or "British Scotch", because there was only 1 kind of Bengalis back then. So, the phrase is inherently incorrect. No confusion about that at least. --Ragib 04:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Usage of Indian Bengali is absolutely correct in this context .he should not be appropriated by the same people who divided the motherland just because they prayed to a different direction.Bharatveer 05:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that a backhanded and illogical remark? Have you read the point raised at all? Anyway, what's your take on Shmitra's comment? --Ragib 05:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Whats back handed and illogical?? I would agree for Indian or Indian Bengali , but not just Bengali because that would be confusing.Bharatveer 06:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

And why is that? Why does

Bengali confuse you? --Ragib

06:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

But you know the answer alreadyBharatveer 06:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't, and would like to hear from you. Thanks. --Ragib 06:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bharatveer's "reasons" are reason enough to make his arguents defunct.--ppm 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No ppm, Your reasons are. Bharatveer 03:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I am constantly amazed by the immature behavior of some Wikipedians, forcing their own views in articles in place of the compromises made in a public discussion. --SameerKhan 05:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page.Bharatveer 06:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bharatveer, you were asked some logical questions, and rather than replying to them directly, you constantly bash people from other nations of the Indian subcontinent. This is not a constructive behavior at all. Luckily, we have logical editors who are ready to come to a compromise. Thank you. --Ragib 06:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, well ragib , I have replied logically too. Can you point out where I have "bashed" people from other nations of Indian subcontinent(thankfully you have used Indian atleast once). Thank you - Bharatveer 07:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

See your talk page. And also, above. --Ragib 07:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, the term "Indian Bengali" is similar to "British English" or "British Scottish". Tagore died in 1940, there were no other kind of Bengali people at that time. Unless Bharatveer can show other reasons, I'd request him from constantly adding that reference. I'm fine with "Bengali poet ... from

I request Bharatveer again, PLEASE show a precedent that categorizes an

Undivided India". Thank you. --Ragib

07:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The article looks quite ok (better than before) now. Thanks-Bharatveer 07:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, your most welcome. Thank you. --Ragib 07:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bengali poet from

Undivided India" is informative, so it's fine, and I don't see any need for further edit wars etc. However, a certain mentality is on display here which is very interesting...just look at this comment from Bharatveer: "Indian Bengali is correct : there was only one Bengali in 1940 that was Indian Bengali : Fortunately or unfortunately there are 2 (types) of bengalis now". Well "Asian Indian Bengali" is also "correct". Would you agree to refer to every Indian as Asian Indian just because of that? Do I need to spell it more clearly, or do you understand that what you are trying to do is voraciously gobble up every identity that doesn't suit your taste of uniformity? --ppm

19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray is up for a peer review. Please take a look. Thanks--ppm 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that the image at the top of the page is gone? Tagore3.jpg has been deleted from commons on Sep 26. I wonder why the admin there didn't bother to check the usage before deletion.

Anyway, this should be corrected soon, as it is creating redlinks all over wikipedia (not only en, but also in other languages).

--Ragib 20:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I contacted the deleting admin at commons, and he has restored the image. Apparently, someone had removed src/license info from the image page, resulting in its deletion later. I've added several sources for the image there. --Ragib 21:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)