Talk:Bengali literature/Archive 1

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Bangla literature → Bengali literature … Rationale: Bengali seems to be used more often on Wikipedia than Bangla. Note that Bengali language is used rather than Bangla language and that what links here shows mostly redirects. joturner 02:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support as requestor. joturner 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support The English adjective is Bengali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs)
• Support - AjaxSmack 07:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC).

Discussion

Add any additional comment

Bengali seems to be used more often on Wikipedia than Bangla. The rationale is a bit flawed. You should have said, Bengali seems to be used more often in English language / media than Bangla. Because The correct name for the language is Bangla ... Bengali is just a incorrect term borrowed from Hindi (Bangaali); but it is also true that Bengali is more widely used in English language texts. In any case, wikipedia should reflect the world, rather than wikipedia articles reflecting wikipedia. Anyway, Thanks. --Ragib 02:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sig; but I must quibble. Bengali (wrong or not) has been adopted into English; Bangla has not, at least so far. But we agree, I think, that WP is not the place to campaign for it, which is the important thing. Septentrionalis 03:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC) !

I said it was used more often on Wikipedia because I was advocating consistency. Qur'an and Koran are both widely accepted in the real world, but (even though probably not the most common) Qur'an is used on Wikipedia consistently. Likewise, even though Kolkata is less commonly used than Calcutta, Kolkata is used on Wikipedia, and thus I would advocate for Kolkata for consistency. joturner 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Satyajit Roy and bengali literature as a whole

I was surprised not to find the name of Satyajit Roy, who is arguably the most gifted bengali of the modern era, among the contributors to bengali literature as presented in this article. In my opinion, the history of creations in this language is incomplete without him. He (and his father and grandfather)had opened many new horizons in this literature, which the predecessors have failed to envisage. I would demand an immediate inclusion of his name.

Another issue I would like to mention about this article which includes a sub-division of the literature as "Bangladeshi literature". I don't think that the literature is distinguishable by political or geographical boundaries when the language and the script are the same, in addition to the culture and heritage. The Bangladeshi are proud of their language, and they are proud to identify themselves as Bengalis. It would be noteworthy to point out that many of the prolific writers (enlisted as "bengali" writers) migrated to West Bengal from Bangladesh, after spending a considerable number of years of their lives in Bangladesh. Whether they are to be identified as "Bengali" rather than "Bangladeshi" is pretty much unclear to me. I think it's better to identify all bengali writers as bengali writers, irrespective of geographical boundaries.

Last of all, I would also like to point out that the list of writers from Bangladesh (I won't use Bangladeshi writers) as presented in the article is pretty thin. I could name atleast a dozen more who deserve to be included here. I think this article needs a radical change in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Junaidasm (talk • contribs)

Modern authors?

The article doesn't discuss modern (post 1947) literature as much as it does the literature from previous periods. --Ragib 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It takes a lot of thinking and time to collect right information and organize them. I am working on it and I am hopefull to contribute soon. Auyon20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle age

Also missing are mediaeval poets like Boru Chodidash (who wrote sri Krishna keertan), Ramai Pandit, and so on. A look at Category:Bengali poets can help in this regard. --Ragib 20:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, do you know of any source from where we can collect an image of Charyapada? I think It will be the ideal picture to go with the first paragraph. Auyon20:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You can upload the image of Charyapada from [1] to commons, using the tag PD-old and PD-India, this is in PD because the work is old, and photos of such PD things are are also in PD, besides the photo is definitely at least 60 years old, and therefore in PD. Add the appropriate tags as I mentioned. --Ragib 20:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot access the images...whenever I click on it, it brings me to page saying Forbidden You don't have permission to access /Images/C_0144A.JPG on this server. Could you upload the images yourself please? Auyon 03:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done Image:Charyapada.jpg --Ragib 03:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I inserted the image. Auyon 15:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Regrets...

It seems, since my last visit to this page, it has somehow deteriorated quite noticeably ! It now contains a lot of spelling errors, capitalization errors, careless casual mistakes, typos, inconsitencies, mixed-up tense, awkward or badly written sentences, gramatical errors, etc. The overall impression one gets is almost similar to what you get from a chat room or message board or sms, and not something you would expect from a wiki article (not to mention an article on literature) !! (well..that's a bit of exaggeration perhaps, but still...)

Following are only a few examples of what I found either erroneous or a bit disconcerting:

Words: 1. tadious 2. evoltion 3. Sangskrit 4. wold 4. enequality 5. genere 7. unjust (where it meant 'injustice')

Sentences or parts of sentences : 8. In the middle of 18th century, Bangla literature starts to gain motion 9. made himself engaged in literary works 8. (Written Language for Bangla Prose) 10. He ruled the bangla literature wold for more than a decade 11. Bangla literature also become rich with its variations 12. that lights the fire against enequality or unjust 13. It is actually poems. It was written on 9th century and Harprashad Shastri discovered in the Nepal Royal Court Library in 1907. Its a palm leaf manuscript.

14. Use of both 'bangali' and 'Bengali' 15. Use of both past and present tenses while describing the past 16. Often sentences start with letters in lower-case; etc etc...

These don't look like the work of the regular editors here. But where are they anyway? Busy elsewhere ? :-)

--Monmajhi 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. By this, I mean if you spot spelling mistakes, why don't you fix it right away? --Ragib 22:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

>> Fixed a lot upto the 'Parichand Mitra' paragraph (hopefully without creating new errors :-) ). The rest will have to wait. By the way, shouldn't the "Nil Bidroho" (see the Impact of Nil Bidroho section) be translated as "Indigo Revolt", instead of "Blue Revolt"? We are talking here about the plant 'Indigo' and its forced cultivation instead of rice, aren't we ? And what about 'Nil Dorpon' ? Is there any need to translate this, even if within brackets ? --Monmajhi 22:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are right, Monmajhi. I dont know what the 'nil bidroho' is called in english, But indigo revolt seems right to me. Lets see what others say. Translating Nil Dorpon...well, almost all of the book title is translated, so why not this one? By the way, should we change the spelling of Nil to Neel? In bangla, we write it with a dirgho e, not with a hrosso e. And in english ee represents it, doesn't it? Thanks. Auyon 09:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The 'Modern era..' section of the article states that Bengali litrature gained momentum in the middle of 18th century. Actually this happened in 19th century. Almost all of the pioneers of modern Bengali language and literature were either born in this century or spent their productive life during this century. This was the period when the modern form of Bengali literature came to life. Anyway, I've corrected the error.--Monmajhi 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Merger with History of Bengali literature

I want to bring to attention that History of Bengali literature has been proposed to be merged into this article. I hope to see some discussion of this, so we either can start merging or removing the merge tag. Delta Tango • Talk 01:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with the merge. I think this is an article on Bengali literature where the article should go according to the subset basis like Novel, Short story etc, But history would be a timeline based one. Auyon10:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
• Don't merge. This article should be a descriptive/narrative article on Bengali literature going genre-by-genre and, may be, school-by-school, as well. The History article should be chronological, and, if it's any consolation to the inclusionists, should ideally be more comprehensive in naming all (as much possible) writers of note. Unfortunately the chronologcal presentation of the History article leaves a lot to be asked for. - Aditya Kabir 13:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The merger has been up for debate for almost a full year now, we have two people who have chimed in with againsts and none for. I think it is safe to remove the tags now and I will go ahead and do just that. -Warhorus 04:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Redundant List of authors

The list of authors I have removed is totally redundant. The alphabetized list can be found at several other places, including Category:Bengali_poets, Category:Bengali-language_writers etc. There is also the article List of Bengali authors. So, no need to repeat the list here, since it is already present in many forms, and linked to from this article. Thanks. --Ragib 06:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

It seems that the full text has been copy pasted from the page http://thinkingaustralia.com/thinking_australia/wikipedia/default.php?title=Bengali_literature with not even a mention on the reference list. I dont know if this is a violation but I AM going to reshape the article in a full scale since the whole article reads like just collection of tags. ( I dont blame the australians in the website that the page was copied from ).

Jeroje 16:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)jeroje

That page is a mirror of Wikipedia. See the ack note at the bottom of that page. --Ragib 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice reply indeed! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Improvement drive

I have decided to improve this article as much as I can. Person who is not interested to take part but want to help this article by providing references or information, please feel free to leave me message either here or my talk page. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 17:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed format

It is really hard to propose a format for this article when other old and well-practised literature articles including English literature and American literature are in a very bad shape. In order to propose a primary format for this article, I mainly followed four articles, two of them I have already mentioned with Scottish literature and Irish literature.

1. A nice, well-written and summarized lead.
2. A brief history, just to light on basic stuff of Bengali literature such as early works, starting of modern era, period of Tegor and post 71 Bangladeshi wing that created a separate branch of Bengali literature like American literature from English literature.
3. Theme base branches (we need to discuss more about it).
4. Section on types and pioneer works such as for Novel first modern Bengali novel and other significant works in this branch. Similarly for Poetry, Short story, Drama etc.
5. Lighting on current situations.
6. Summarizing in an appropriate way.

Note that this is just a primary format, and it will be highly appreciated if you come up with a totally different one or so. I am waiting to hear from Bangladeshi and Indian wikipedians regarding this matter. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 14:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated. A nice and compact history of Bengali Literature, with periods marked out clearly, would do nicely. There may be sub-sections on monumental personalities and works, but all that should come as part of coherent timeline. That is what has been done for most of the core articles on literature by nationality, and there is no reason that this should be any different. Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be really nice if you just go more specifically. If I am not wrong, are you indicating this structure - English literature? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

(reduced indent) It's pretty simple. Say it's something like:

<L2 Header>Samskrit and Pali origins

Includes the earliest literature in Bengal (2nd Century BC to 12th century AD), with examples of court and temple literature (Atisha Dipankar and Chakrapani Dutta and the likes).

<L3 Header>Jayadeva

Includes information on a great Samskrit poets in Bangladesh

<L3 Header>Bhababhuti

Includes information on a great Samskrit poets in Bangladesh

<L2>Header>Indigenous oral literature

Includes what is conjectured about the oral literature in the post-Gupta, Sena and Pala periods (4th to 12th century). RC Majuder, NR Roy and A Sharif - the three biggest expaerts all have something to say about this.

<L2 Header>Early literature

Includes the Charyapada and the poets of Charyapada (Luipa, Kanhupa, Shabarpa, Dhendanpa and so on. Tell how the only surviving remains of the Charyapada is in Tibetan script. Connect this to the Sahaj Yan movement of the time (about 10th century)

<L2 Header>Coming of the Muslims

Includes the impact of Muslims on literature, especially in patronizing indegenous languages instead of Samskrit and Pali

<L3 Header>Alaol

One of the greatest poets supported by a Muslim court

<L2 Header>Bhakti literature

Vaishanav literature would come this section. Explain how the bhakti movement curved a niche in early Bengali literature. Connect this to the movement of Shri Gauranga and others.

This could go on. But, what I see here is a strong need for research. Take a journey through the history of Bengali literature and all this would come easy to you. It is more important to write the article than discussing formats. When you have enough material put into the article, other editors can reorganize it easily. Wikipedia is a Wiki, and that means everything can be edited as work progresses. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advise but I always feel comfortable to work in a slightly organized environment. If I don't find that environment, I prepare it in my mind and start working. But, this time I am a bit confused as not a single article exist here that can guide me on the right track. I think I have to do huge research but I am gonna make it for sure. Cheers! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 09:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the format proposed by Aditya, but it seems to me that such a format is more appropriate for the History of Bengali literature article. On this article if we go by genres (Music - Poetry - Drama - Novels - Essays - Short Stories - Popular liteature) that may be a good way to differentiate between these two articles. Arman ^(Talk) 06:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a good proposal. Though it is not final, but a primary proposal of format only. It is better than the prsent. I support this proposal. If need, time will change the format.--Librarianpmolib (talk) 08:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your nice and constructive feedbacks in response to my request. Arman Bhaia talked about exactly what I was thinking. Format that Aditya Bhaia proposed is appropriate for History of Bengali literature though English Literature article followed it. I think a modified format (only format, not the content since it is extremely messy) in Irish Literature will be suitable to distinguish these two (Literature and History) articles. I am looking forward to get some quick help from Librarianpmolib. I am planning to bring some resourceful books from Bangladesh. Could you please suggest me 3-4 names so that I can tell my family to send me those books here in Dublin? Cheers! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. There are two major ways of describing literature - critical and historical. Even when you adopt a genre-by-genre format, it is eventually bound to turn historical (i.e. "Satyandranath Tagore, who was a contemporary of Rabindranath, had considerable influence on the literature he turned during his mid-life, eventually giving way to an influence of modern poetry heralded by Buddhadev Basu, Premendra Mitra and Vishnu Dey.").

An NPOV summery of critical assessment would also turn historical (i.e. "While the poems of Michael Madhusudan Dutta was a big leap in meter structure and rhyming pattern in Bangla literature, he left no major successors of his styles, a feat achieved by Rabindranath by dint of his width of style that ranged from existential poems like Shishutirtha to Vasishnav Geets to long Kahini Kavyas (poems that tell a story). Kazi Nazrul Islam achieved his own niche of popular successors in style through the immediacy and machismo of his poems that often aspired for a range as wide.").

The other problem is, of course, the existence of a lot of major literary works that cover two or more genres at the same time (example: poetic plays of Tagore). We may ignore the fact that Bengali literature, till mid-19th century, consisted solely of poems in all the form's diversity.

Anyways, I propose that we keep adding stuff to the article. When there is enough material to organize, it will be organized. Let's not cut the coat before we have a piece of cloth to begin with. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Post Script I have just taken a look at the articles on English and Irish literature, and both seemed pretty much historical commentaries complimented by critical descriptions. One uses a period structure while the other goes genre-by-genre. A minor detail. On the other hand, I have checked the History of Bengali Language article, and haven't been able to figure out the rationale for its existence. Both this article and the history article are in such rudimentary state that it is very difficult to decide if we need two separate articles or not. It is entirely possible that we create sections for novels and poems here, and create a timeline (without critical commentary) for the other article. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi! African American literature has a different kind of structure. Of course, there are certain aspects of that literature that provide the scope to carry on the different structure of the article. I think Bengali literature should not only discuss history. We need some good reference books that may shed some light on the optimal structure.

I do not discard Niaz's first draft (as proposed in the beginning of this discussed) as Aditya did. Niaz, what exactly do you exactly mean by "Theme based branches"? Did you mean Music - Poetry - Drama - Novels - Essays - Short Stories - Popular liteature etc ? (as mentioned by Arman)

Have a look at Japanese literature. Structurally, it somewhat follows Niaz's proposal.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found 2 comparable FAs which can guide us here - one is African-American Literature and the other is Turkish literature. Both of these follow the timeline structure. The later one breaks down modern age into prose and poetry. I think any structure is fine as long as it covers the topic adequately and is sequenced logically. If we want this article to be based on a timeline structure that can be done nicely, but in that case, I propose to merge it with History of Bengali literature. If separate articles need to be retained on both topics, then this one should have a theme based structure. Combining both structures (as proposed by Niaz initially) could be somewhat confusing and lots of information will come repeatedly in different places of the article (e.g. Discussion on Rabindranath will come once in history, then again in poetry, music, novel etc.). So, I strongly recommend to go either way. Arman ^(Talk) 11:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Arman is correct in pointing out complications, particularly repetitions, would arise while following Niaz's proposed format. Let's do one thing. Let's follow the easier path. First, in some sandbox, let's create the timeline based article. It would take time, and solid referencing. The content that is there now in History of Bengali literature can be used as the beginning of the sandbox. Let's have a collaborative try for, say, 15 days. How about that?--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice proposal. But don't see the need to move it to a sandbox. We can directly contribute / modify the History of Bengali literature article and when appropriate move it to / merge it with Bengali literature. Arman ^(Talk) 10:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do also think that we need not to use any sandbox here. We may start working directly on the main article. I think both of you actually misunderstood some of my points though it was my fault as I didn't clear it in my proposal and also due to my late reply. Let me clear all the issues one by one.

• By the term theme actually I meant exactly what Dwaipayan pointed out. I think Turkish literature (as mentioned by Arman Bhaia) would be a standard form to follow.
• I do agree with the point that including history section in this article will be a repetition. But still I strongly prefer to add a very small and concise, may be five to seven line long, history of Bengali literature section in the beginning with pointing towards its main article. Please think this issue twice.
• I believe this article requires offline references from books authored by expert researchers of the respective domain. Anwar Bhaia (Librarianpmolib) provided me a nice list containing works of some prominent authors. We should try to collect those books.

1. Lal Nil Dipaboli by Humayun Azad
2. Adhunik Bangla Sahitya by Moniruzzaman, Bangla Academy, 1965 Price: 6.50 Taka
3. Prachin O Modhya Juger Bangla Sahitya by Azhar Islam, Bangla Academy, 2000, Taka-160.00
4. Bangla Sahityer Kotha, Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah. Mawla Brothers, 2006, Taka-160.00
5. Bangla Sahityer Kotha, Dr. Muhammad Shahidullah. Mawla Brothers, 2002, Taka-230.00

I think it's all set to initiate the work. Let us start with a nicely written intro. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 12:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Need more info on Syed Mustafa Siraj

Hi, I am trying to beef up the page on Syed Mustafa Siraj. Can people familiar with his work or his biography please help? I especially need references to external sources (especially sources not available online, I haven't had much luck with Google).

Thanks!

Splitpeasoup (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

What's happening?

The proud literature of Bangal has boiled down to a list of non-notable writers, and no real substance? Gawd!!! Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose the merge is not necessary! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)