Jump to content

Talk:Syama Prasad Mukherjee/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Spelling and Usage

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

Google Hits (May 06):

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

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


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

?

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Syama Prasad Mukherjee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syama Prasad Mukherjee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

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

GA Review

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GA Review

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

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

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

Okay ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, to my bulleted-list critique ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Daniel Case: I have tried to address the issues raised by you. Can you please have a look now? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 03:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Non-reviewer comments

  • I'd like to reiterate some points I raised at the original GAR, abandoned through no fault of the nominator, which Daniel Case may not have seen. I'm a little concerned by some of the sources used. Some are academic publications, which are reliable, but many others are relatively unknown non-academic publications. This does not necessarily make them unreliable, but they do need to be examined. At least one of the publishers, Lulu.com, is a thoroughly unreliable publish-what-you-like institution. Second, the treatment of Mukherjee's views and legacy strikes me as inadequate. Mukherjee's primary legacy was the political influence of his ideology; buildings and programs named after him are secondary. His views need to be treated systematically. Right now we have material on his activities, and on his views on Kashmir, which does not come to the same thing. Finally, there is some heavy usage of quotations. I'd suggest that these issues be resolved before the article is passed. Vanamonde (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Failure

@Vanamonde93: I was aware of that original review ... I believe I referenced the legacy issue you raised in the last bullet point above. But thanks for returning and noting the additional issues with the quality of some of the sources (or lack thereof)

@Capankajsmilyo:, I apologize for having taken a couple of days to get back to you. However, you'll probably wish I hadn't. I have decided to fail the article as I believe it cannot be improved to GA status within a short time.

First, your response to my review consisted largely of changing the format of the footnotes to {{sfn}}. You may well have felt this was necessary. However, I had not identified that as an issue.

Your most direct response to my critique was to put in endnotes explaining Article 370 and the Quit India Movement. While some response was better than none, I don't see why this information required endnotes, the effective use of which is not always obvious to readers, when both could have easily been conveyed inline through appositive phrases (hypothetical example: "The Quit India Movement, which sought the end of British rule in India, ...").

I did not see any attempt made to address the overquoting, which the earlier review had found problematic and which Vanamonde also notes above, nor was any reason for not doing so put forth in response. I do appreciate that the early life section now explains that he went to England to study law in the mid-1920s. But, again, that wasn't the only change the article needed.

Since you asked me take another look and Vanamonde responded, Sitush has gone over the article and added further tags. The list of issues that must be addressed before the article can be recognized as a GA has only grown not only since the article was nominated, but also since this review was initiated. Therefore I feel it must be failed as there are more issues to address than can be reasonably done within a couple of days. Once those things are done, it can certainly be renominated. Daniel Case (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Citation consistency

There seems to be a wide range of cite styles in use. For example, I've seen news items with {{cite news}}, {{cite web}} and {{citation}}, and with inconsistent use of the |publisher and |work parameters. We really should probably stick to one. - Sitush (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed page move

I have reverted the undiscussed page move. AmitMondal1299, until you become fully conversant with WP:TITLE, you should always discuss any page move you contemplate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Education

Can someone clarify or research if his 'Dr' title was conferred for any research he may have done, or of the honorary nature. It was an honorary degree, conferred in 1938 after the end of his terms as Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University. He was never into research, just educational administration. However, I could not locate any reference material in English.AnilaDebesh (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Name

On 30 December 2014, a disruptive editor called Kkm010 moved this page to its current title "Syama Prasad Mukherjee". He claimed that "Mookerjee is actually Mukherjee (current title is far more appropriate)". On that day, the page looked like this. Of the 16 citations present on that day, only four spelt his name as "Mukherjee". Two were news articles by Balraj Puri, another in The Tribune, and a third, a book by Y. G. Bhave, which used both the spellings. The rest of the sources, including Encyclopedia Britannica, spelt his name as "Mookerjee". That didn't stop our POV warrior from making his claims.

Today, the article lists a couple of dozen sources. I picked just the ones published by academic publishers and checked whether they have the current spelling:

  • Andersen, Walter K.; Damle, Shridhar D. (1987) [Originally published by Westview Press], The Brotherhood in Saffron: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Hindu Revivalism, Delhi: Vistaar Publications Red XN
  • Bandyopādhyāẏa, Śekhara (1 January 2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, Orient Blackswan, ISBN 978-81-250-2596-2 Green tickY
  • Bapu, Prabhu (2013), Hindu Mahasabha in Colonial North India, 1915–1930: Constructing Nation and History, Routledge, ISBN 978-0-415-67165-1
  • Baxter, Craig (1969), The Jana Sangh; a biography of an Indian political party, University of Pennsylvania Press Red XN
  • Chatterji, Joya (2002), Bengal Divided: Hindu Communalism and Partition, 1932–1947, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521523288 Red XN
  • Dossani, Rafiq; Rowen, Henry S. (2005), Prospects for Peace in South Asia, Stanford University Press, ISBN 9780804750851 Red XN
  • Harun-or-Rashid (2003), The Foreshadowing of Bangladesh: Bengal Muslim League and Muslim Politics, 1906–1947, The University Press Limited Red XN
  • Hashmi, Taj ul-Islam (1994), Peasant utopia: the communalization of class politics in East Bengal, 1920–1947, The University Press Limited Red XN
  • Majumdar, Ramesh Chandra (1978), History of Modern Bengal, Oxford University Press
  • Mookherjee, Shyama Prasad (2000), Leaves from a Dairy, Oxford University Press Red XN
  • Puniyani, Ram (21 July 2005), Religion, Power and Violence: Expression of Politics in Contemporary Times, SAGE Publications, ISBN 978-0-7619-3338-0
  • Sarkar, Sumit; Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi (2008), Towards freedom: documents on the movement for independence in India, 1946, Part 1, Oxford University Press Red XN
  • Sen, Khagendra Nath (1970), Education and the nation: An Indian perspective, University of Calcutta Red XN
  • Smith, Donald Eugene (2015), South Asian Politics and Religion, Princeton University Press, ISBN 9781400879083 Red XN

Red XN The sources overwhelmingly do not support this spelling.

So, I propose that the page be moved back to the original title and all the occurrences of "Mukherjee" be changed back to "Mookerjee". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The explanation given by Kautilya3 is quite comprehensive enough to justify the move from "Mukherjee" to "Mookerjee". To add, "Mookerjee" is also an alternative spelling of "Mukherjee" that was quite prevalent in early 20th century and even now. Syama Prasad Mookerjee's family used the spelling Mookerjee and it has been used is most of the reliable sources on the subject. I support Kautilya3's proposal to move the article back to it's original title. BengaliHindu (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syama_Prasad_Mukherjee/Archive_1&oldid=1058703633"