Talk:Manilal Dwivedi/Archive 1

Quote
Hi Gog, Can we add this quote of Manilal Dwivedi in the article ? It gives an idea of Manilal's quest for 'true locus of love (meaning someone who worships me unconditionally), a cental thing in Manilal's life.

"It is necessary to state at this point that the principal quest of my life was towards finding a pure locus of love. I believe that it is best if such a locus be a woman and if that woman be the one to whom one is married. But all in vain..! I considered it to be good if in absence of a woman one be bound by true love to some man. It is for this reason only that I arranged to have friends and to the extent possible, my endeavour was that for my friends I be the only one locus of love. For me the nature of love was joyous and non-dual where the self is forgotten and is one with the other. After I came to age of understanding I might have entered into relationship with some women, but that was for the purpose of this quest and not out of any lust or desire. But I did not find fruits of my liking from either men or women and my love resulted into longing."

—Manilal Nabhubhai Dwivedi; Atmavritanta, Chapter 3, p. 30 --Gazal world (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's your article. IMO it is a bit long, so I am going to edit it down, but change that if you don't like it. Who translated it? I want to correct the English, are you ok with that? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is originally in Gujarati. It has been translated by Tridip Suhrud. We need to paraphrase it. Please help. -Gazal world (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added. See what you think. I have taken out the bit about friends, which to my eye largely repeats what he says about women, and smoothed the English very slightly. I shall leave the referencing to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good. But it is still copy-vio (I have copied it from Suhrud's Ph.D thesis). It need to be rewritten. -Gazal world (talk) 14:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah. Ok. Had a go. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Very nice. Now, I will add some more content about his life and writing career. Then, I will get back to you. Thanks for all your help, Gog. -Gazal world (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty good to me. I have made a couple of minor tweaks. I think that it is ready for GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thaker. You give him as 1983 in Sources and 1979 in your cites 27 and 28.

Cite 20. If this is in Gujarati, it should say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Done -Gazal world (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Random comment
I know next to nothing about the topic, but the following sentence strikes me as odd: "not all of these relationships were platonic: in several cases, Manilal tried to satisfy his sexual desires under the pretext of being in love". My understanding is that romantic love is by definition not platonic. It also seems expected that love and sex go together and that Manilal would seek to sleep with the women that he fancied. Anyway that's my 2c. buidhe 02:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Thank you very much for your comment. I also feel the same. But it is a direct statement of Dhirubhai Thaker, biographer of Manilal Dwivedi. So I have put it in article. If it is not suitable for the article, we will paraphrase it or remove it. Could you suggest how we can reword it ? Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a complex issue. I don't know what the wiki article states, and have no time to read it, but the several standard volumes I do have on the development of concepts of love ground romantic love to medieval courtly poetry, where desire was subjected to a kind of religious adoration which tended to exclude consummation. Traditionally in numerous cultures, love and sex were two distinct matters. In the post-Freudian word, love was desire under repression or a feeling that sexual urges took second place to 'pure' love. Any number of examples of the afflatus of 'love' that, on consummation, reveals itself as a total indifference to the beloved (usually a woman) could be cited from novels, Shiga Naoya's A Dark Night's Passing etc., to avoid being Eurocentric.Nishidani (talk) 08:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

political reform
Hello. Hope, you are keeping well. I am OK with this changes, but it would be better if we replace 'political reform' with 'reform'. No need to use the word 'political'. Instead I would use 'social reform'. --Gazal world (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments
I'm reading through again with an eye to renominating at FAC, and will post comments here.
 * As Thaker noted in his biography of Manilal, not all of these relationships were platonic: in several cases, Manilal tried to satisfy his sexual desires under the pretext of being in love. This doesn't seem the most natural phrasing. What's the text in Thaker that this is based on?
 * I have sent you the original pages. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made quite a few changes here; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) but his journal records. Need to replace 'journal' with 'autobiography'. Or is it OK to write 'journal' for diary? (the later part of Manilal's autobiography is written in diary form). (2) Manilal was obsessed with the idea of a perfect loving relationship. For 'perfect loving relationship', Manilal used the term 'Shuddha Premsthan' (Shuddha= Pure, Prem=Love, Sthan=Locus) repeatedly. Suhrud translated this term as 'Pure locus of love' (Suhrud, p. 102; you can access the source chapter here). --Gazal world (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thaker says "journal", so I assumed it was either the underlying source from which the autobiography was published, or the autobiography itself; either way I think it's OK to use it since Thaker does. For "pure locus of love" I think this is worth mentioning since it's clearly a key concept for Manilal but since we don't have room for an extended discussion, how about using a footnote to give both "Shuddha Premsthan" and "pure locus of love"? I.e. put a footnote on "perfect loving relationship" saying "Manilal consistently used the phrase "Shuddha Premsthan" when describing his search for a perfect relationship; Suhrud translates this as "pure locus of love"."  This would have to be cited to Suhrud but also to something that can support "consistently used the phrase "Shuddha Premsthan" since Suhrud doesn't support that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Though there are at-least 20 mentions of 'pure locus of love' in Suhrud, but I can't find exact statement we want: consistently used the phrase. Suhrud writes: But Mamlal could not bring himself to love her [his wife]. This inability to love her and search for a locus of love became constant themes in Manilal’s life. (Suhrud, p. 109) Can you change the footnote slightly? --Gazal world (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After thinking about this some more I don't think we need "consistently", and citing a page on which Suhrud translates directly is good enough, so I added the footnote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * they were held to capture the spirit of ghazal according to critic Mansukhlal Jhaveri: should "the spirit of ghazal" be "the spirit of ghazals"? Or "the spirit of the ghazal"? The latter would be right if Jhaveri is saying that Manilal captured the essence of the poetic form.
 * This: Jhaveri is saying that Manilal captured the essence of the poetic form. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The first two paragraphs of "Religious and philosophical writings" repeat and extend some material from the start of the new "Philosophy" section. What's the goal of this material?  Should we add some of it to "Philosophy" and delete it here, or is there a good reason to add more comments on his Advaitism at this point in the article?
 * Initially I wrote three sections to classify Manilal's writings. You are right. Can you (or Nizil) delete/move some contents from it? I am really sorry for asking for too much help. --Gazal world (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it soon. No problem on asking for help -- I'm glad to help get the article back to FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a suggestion. Can we add Manilal's interpretation of the term "advaita" (which means 'not-two') as "ananya" (which means 'inseparable')? See this & this (last para. of p.341, continue on p.342). --Gazal world (talk) 15:03, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's interesting but I don't see how to integrate it into what we've written so far. Where would you put it?  In the sentence "He believed that the self and God are not different in any way, and he argued that the Bhagavad Gita teaches this point of view rather than being a philosophical precursor of Advaitism"?  It's an expansion of the idea in the first part of that sentence, but I'm nervous about putting it there because neither source makes reference to the other definition, so it would be synthesis on our part.  Is there enough material on this specific point to warrant another paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:45, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Leave it for now. I will add this in future after enough research. --Gazal world (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Footnote 5, to Yashaschandra, is showing a harv error: "Harv error: link from CITEREFYashaschandra1995 doesn't point to any citation."
 * My mistake. I removed Yashaschandra from "Sources" as it has no any useful detail for the article, but forgot to remove it from "Citations". I have removed it now. --Gazal world (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've copyedited down to "Social reform..." and will pick up again probably tonight or tomorrow morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature. See comments in the subsection below, replying to Fowler&fowler.  Does Thaker assert that others believe this, or is it apparently only Thaker who believes this?  If the latter, I'd make it "are considered by Thaker to be unparalleled"; if the former we should do something like "Thaker argues that their public debates".
 * It is only Thaker's statement. But other writers also maintain the same. For example, Suhrud writes: The debate, sometimes acrimonious, but often modulated by norms of civility, is one of the most important debates in the history of intellectual thought in nineteenth century Gujarat. No two thinkers engaged with each other over such a long period on fundamental issues of religion and social practice. (Suhrud, p. 157) --Gazal world (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * With the extra citation I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:28, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

That's all I have time for this morning; more later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

More comments:
 * During his school years, Manilal was a member of an association known as Swa-Sudharak (self-reformist). Raval gives no details at all, including the translation, so we'd have to source that. Is this worth including?  Raval gives a footnote, I would guess to the autobiography; if that gives more details we might be able to use them since Raval's made the editorial choice to mention it.  Otherwise I think this could be cut.
 * I went ahead and cut this as part of the move of material Nizil suggested below; we can re-add it if there are more details available. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Around 1882, Mansukhram Suryaram Tripathi encouraged Manilal to revive the Buddhi Vardhak Sabha, a social and literary group. Thereafter, Manilal acted as its secretary and discussion on various topics took place under its auspices. This whole paragraph is taken almost without paraphrasing from the source. I'm about to work on rewriting it, but this would lead to a quick oppose and probably a quick fail at FAC.  I've checked (I think) all the material that I've looked at using the sources you've sent me; could you check the rest of the page?  If you see anything this close to the source let me know and I'll have a crack at rewriting it.
 * Apologize for that. I am going through entire article. And 'll let you know if there are anything in contents which are close to the sources. --Gazal world (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Stopping there for now as that paragraph is going to take me a while. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The rephrase is done, largely by cutting, as there's not much to say without a direct quote. Again is it possible to look at whatever it is that Raval is citing here?  If it's Atmavrittanta then we may not be able to use it as the story is rather self-congratulatory, so we'd need a source other than Manilal himself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. Sorry, but I didn't understand the above comment. --Gazal world (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think what I was referring to was the edit turning this: Here, he came in contact with Narmad, who was much impressed by Manilal's scholarship and his writings on Indian cultural tradition. Later, Narmad, on his death-bed, expressed the hope that Manilal would carry forward the reform activities he had expounded. into this: the group's activities brought him in contact with Narmad, who later saw Manilal as his successor in the field of social reform. If you're OK with the cut we can leave it, but I had some trouble paraphrasing part of this and thought it was easier to cut it.  If Raval's source here is Atmavrittanta we should leave it since we don't want to cite Manilal for how great Narmad thought he was, but if whatever Raval is citing here can be accessed this might be expanded again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Here, Raval's source is the 'Introduction' of Sudarshan Gadyawali (written by Anandshankar Dhruv). (p. 18). But most probably, the original source for this account is Manilal's autobiography. I will have to check. Also, It is a well-known fact that Narmad was 'liberal' (Westernised) in his early days, but in the later life he subscribed 'Orthodox' approach, and admired Manilal for his work and scholarship. --Gazal world (talk) 14:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, we still have "Narmad...later saw Manilal as his successor in the field of social reform", which makes that point. If you have more sources about this we can add more details but I think this is OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

More: That's it for this pass; I want to do a little more copyediting of the Reception section once you've responded to the last bullet point above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In 1884, Manilal published Nari Pratishtha in eight installments in the weekly periodical Gujarati. It was republished, with additions, in book form in 1885. This is not supported by the given source (Raval 202).
 * Manilal, along with his fellow Gujarati writer Govardhanram Tripathi, significantly contributed to Gujarati literature. The period of their activity (1885–1905) is recognised as the Mani-Govardhan Era rather than by a general terms such as Sakshar Yuga or Pandit Yuga. This a very positive statement; can you find (in English or Gujarati) evidence that "Mani-Govardhan Era" is a term used by more than just Thaker? Without other evidence of usage I think this should be attributed to Thaker inline.
 * His vision combined an ardent advocacy of Aryan philosophy with a Hindu worldview. Does Aryan philosophy here refer to his Advaitism? I'm not familiar with how "Aryan" gets interpreted.

A couple more notes:
 * I still need to copyedit the lead, once the body is settled.
 * Now copyedited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:37, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very very much. It looks impressive now. --Gazal world (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can mention in the lead that "he was invited to present a paper at the first Parliament of World Religions". --Gazal world (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We talked about Madhav Baug in the sandbox; I think we agreed it should be "the Madhav Baug" throughout. Is the temple prominent enough to get a redlink?  Are there sources (even if only in Gujarati) that discuss it?

Some proposals from me: --Nizil (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing Philosophy section title to Philosophy and social reform activities
 * Yes, that's better; I changed it to "Philosophy and social reform", though, as I think "activities" is implied -- and it discusses his beliefs as well as his activities. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Moving first two paragraphs (except sentences on Nari Pratishtha) in Social reform and educational writing to Philosophy and social reform activities section or Biography section. (Only if it seem appropriate to Mike and Gazal world)
 * Done; I tweaked them a little and cut one sentence per the comment above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Still outstanding
The section above is getting a bit hard to keep track of, so I've moved here everything I think is still outstanding.
 * Gazal world is reviewing the sources to check for any further instances of copying or close paraphrasing.
 * In 1884, Manilal published Nari Pratishtha in eight installments in the weekly periodical Gujarati. It was republished, with additions, in book form in 1885. This is not supported by the given source (Raval 202).
 * I have added the source, but In 1884 still need citation. For that I will have to cite Thaker's Gujarati book which was published by local Gujarati publisher. I avoid to use Gujarati source as It might create problem at FAC. Can we cut in 1884? --Gazal world (talk) 11:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can if you want, but I don't see a problem with a Gujarati source. English sources are preferred since this is the English Wikipedia, but if the only source is in another language there's no prohibition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. --Gazal world (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Manilal, along with his fellow Gujarati writer Govardhanram Tripathi, significantly contributed to Gujarati literature. The period of their activity (1885–1905) is recognised as the Mani-Govardhan Era rather than by a general terms such as Sakshar Yuga or Pandit Yuga. This a very positive statement; can you find (in English or Gujarati) evidence that "Mani-Govardhan Era" is a term used by more than just Thaker? Without other evidence of usage I think this should be attributed to Thaker inline.
 * As I am closely associated with Gujarati literature, I know that "Pandit Yuga" is known as "Mani-Govardhan Era". I have read this in several books. To find references, I will have to go in library. There are limited history books in my personal library. All the Era of Gujarati literature are also named by the most important writers of the respective era. For Example: "Sudharak Yuga" (Reform Era) is also know by "Dalpat-Narmad Era", just like that "Pandit Yuga" --> "Mani-Govardhan Era". --Gazal world (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK -- let's add another cite for this. Any chance you can find something online in Gujarati that would suffice for now? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 20:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I will find out something. I just came back from a long trip. More on morning. --Gazal world (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Mike, So here, Thaker writes: Their literary writings and the outlooks reflected in them dominated contemporary Gujarati literature so powerfully that the period of their active work in Gujarati literature (1885-1905) could very well be recognized as Mani-Govardhan yuga instead of by a general term like Sakshar yuga or Pundit yuga. Also, this book ("The Development of Gujarati Literature" Vol. 3) written by Thaker also states the same. So attribute this to Thaker. --Gazal world (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I read a bit more about Thaker, and given his authority and the fact that the statement is repeated and that you know it's not controversial, I think we can leave this as is. If it gets challenged at FAC we can look for more citations if we have to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * His vision combined an ardent advocacy of Aryan philosophy with a Hindu worldview. Does Aryan philosophy here refer to his Advaitism? I'm not familiar with how "Aryan" gets interpreted.
 * Here 'Aryan philosophy' refers to 'Indian [Hindu] philosophy'. See, Aryan. --Gazal world (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, let's leave this as is. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Integrate commentary on Manilal's interpretation of 'advaita" as "ananya" if more source discussion can be found.
 * We will leave this point for now. I realized that this needs more research. We will add it in future. --Gazal world (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Are there enough sources on the Madhav Baug to make it a redlink? If not I think a parenthetical explanation would be helpful for the reader; perhaps "(a prominent Hindu temple in Bombay)"?  That would have to be sourced too, of course.
 * What is your opinion ? --Gazal world (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't have to be addressed before FAC, of course. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Madhav Baug is located here on Google Maps. This Google Books ref says, "Madhav Baug, the great Hindu public space founded in 1874, had busts of its founders Nurrotumdass and Vurjeevandass Madhavdas, erected in 1915.". It can be used to cite the note. But I think redlink is not needed right now until someone create an article on it. I found several sources with just mentioning it in Google Books. This Hindu public space included Hindu temple of Laxminarayan, rest house and other facilities. It was built by above two in memory of their father Madhavdas Ranchhoddas.-Nizil (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we then have a parenthetical definition such as "(a Hindu public space that included a temple and rest house)", or a footnote, using the source you found? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a note on Madhavbaug.-Nizil (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Contents that needs rephrasing

 * "Biography" section: The second last paragraph: Manilal attended the convention of... ...University of Punjab in 1890, 1891 and 1892.
 * "Death" section: Second sentence: Manilal recorded an abscess... ...developed jaundice and pleurisy.

Gazal world, am I right in thinking that these need rephrasing since they are too close to the original source? I'll look at these now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Both are now reworded. The first one I cut a little; I hope the cut material is not important.  For the second one I cut the abcess as I don't think that's as important as the mention of jaundice and pleurisy.  I left that part of the sentence untouched; I think it's short enough that it's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * "Religious and philosophical writings" section: Second paragraph: he made tremendous... ...learned Indian philosopher. [Original text: He sincerely believed that the root of all activities of human life is to be traced to the principle of Advait enunciated by Shankaracharya and that the essence of Geeta is the Karmayog[a]. Having been so convinced, Manilal made tremendous efforts to establish the superiority of Indian culture in comparison with the Western culture.].
 * I checked all the contents. They are OK. Only the above content from the "Religious and philosophical writings" need to be rephrased. --Gazal world (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Rewritten, but I just remembered that we already talked about the fact that those two paragraphs overlap with the "Philosophy and social reform" section. What would you think of moving them up to that section?  We don't need all of it; some of it duplicates the earlier section.  What would we need to keep? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. We should remove the first sentence of the first paragraph as we already defined his philosophical position and what the Advaitism is. We can move the second paragraph into "Philosophy and social reform" with ce/trimming. I think, the "Social reform and educational writings" section has became a little thin. Can we add some more contents in it ? We can add some points about "Nari Pratishtha" there. Do you think that we should drop "educational" from the section title.? --Gazal world (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I cut it down; the bit that might be re-usable in the philosophy section is He believed that the philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, that the self is part of all and vice versa, can guide all human activities, and that the essence of Bhagavad Gita is the karma yoga (path of unselfish action). The first half of this seems to me to be already in the earlier section, but we don't mention the karma yoga.  We already mention the Bhagavad Gita, but only in the context of his belief that it already taught Advaitism.  How would you amend this to mention the karma yoga? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Re your other question: go ahead and add whatever you can source on Nari Pratishtha. I think we can leave "educational" in, or is there some reason you think it doesn't apply? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:10, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We can mention the karma yoga, but then, do you think that we will have illuminate it more with explanation? Bedekar (Yajnik) & Patel have discussed about it, I think. Regrading "educational": There are only one book 'Bal vilas' which was written to educate school-girls. Manilal also wrote educational contents in Priyamvada, but the word 'social reform' also include inherently 'education', I think. Regarding 'Nari Pratishtha': Can you also help me here to summarize the main arguments of 'Nari Pratishtha' ? I have sent you 'Shukla1995' source. There are a summary of the essay on p. 91. --Gazal world (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll look at summarizing it for the article, but reading through it makes me think we should rework our characterization of Manilal a bit more. Shukla is clearer than Thaker about Manilal being directly opposed to the reformers in many cases (she says "He led a crusade against the reformers"), and calls him a revivalist, and a proponent of orthodoxy.  The "Philosophy" section reflects this, though I think we could add a bit from Shukla, but the lead makes it appear he was on the side of the reformers.  I'll make some edits and see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:11, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I made a pass through; any comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Still I feel, the most important argument of 'Nari Pratishtha' is missing: A couple joined in love is undivided by death. (this indicates to his concept of ideal and perfect loving relationship) With this premise, Manilal had to conclude that widow remarriage was sinful. Ideally, even a man should not remarry, but given women's superior capacity for love and affection, the obligation on them not to remarry was obligatory. Regarding Shukla: Here Shukla's term 'reformers' refers to 'modernists'. Can we add in the lead: "...was a Gujarati-language writer, philosopher, and social thinker (Suhrud, p.102) from British India" ? --Gazal world (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I just noticed we give his marriage as 1858, which is the year of his birth. I made it 1871 since he was thirteen when he was married, but it could have been 1872 -- can you confirm?
 * His marriage year is unknown. We only know that when he got married, he was 13. --Gazal world (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Manilal based his poetry collection Atmanimajjan (1895) on his own circumstances, with the theme of love. What does "on his own circumstances" mean?
 * "on his own circumstances" means "on his own personal life, his experience". --Gazal world (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:51, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Suggestion: We can mention in the lead that "he was invited to present a paper at the first Parliament of World Religions. (Though he didn't attend it, his paper was read there). --Gazal world (talk) 08:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I think I've now addressed all your comments above. It's looking good to me now; I will do one more read through, but I think this can go back to FAC whenever you're ready (we have to wait till 26 August because of the requirement for a two week gap after archiving). What do you think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Fowler&fowler

 * Note by Fowler&fowler. Gazal world, I have stated earlier on the FAC talk page that this article is not ready for FAC (and it might never be) because it has unreliable sources—extraordinarily unreliable. The Thacker book has POV, vague writing, factual, grammatical, and stylistic deficiencies. Some of these are reflected in the lead.  Examine the following sentences in Thacker: "As admitted by him in the autobiography, he visited a prostitute for the first time in his life in the second term of the First Year class, as a result of which he contracted syphilis tertiary, which he could get rid of by ordinary treatment in the first instance. But when he repeated the indulgence after a year the disease reappeared and remained his life-long companion as a permanent blot on his character. His Gujarati co-students exploited this weakness of his and unsuccessfully tried to get Manilal dismissed from the college and Manilal could not secure the first rank in the F.E.A. Examination."
 * How did he contract tertiary syphilis? It is not like you can contract it in that stage (which develops three to five years after the primary infection). What ordinary treatment was this (before the advent of antibiotics) that cured it? Why was it a "permanent blot?" Why did only his "Gujarati co-students" exploit ...? Why not the Marathi-speaking students, the Parsis, the Jews, the Anglo-Indians at Elphinstone? (If it were such a big deal, these others would have found out.) Why was it a weakness? How do we know that the campaign for his ouster was the reason for his not obtaining the first rank? What is the FEA exam? The Intermediate, the Bachelors? Nothing adds up here. The deficiencies are reflected in the lead:

"'Manilal's private life was inconsistent with his professions: he indulged in unrestrained eroticism and promiscuous relationships. He married at the age of thirteen and had two children. Due to his visits to brothels, he contracted syphilis and, after suffering from serious bouts of illness throughout his life, died at the age of 40.'"
 * Why are we mentioning "syphilis" in the lead? Is it that notable? Thacker mentions it once in his book of 92 pages in the sentences quoted above. Why was his private life inconsistent with his professions? (He was not a priest.)
 * what is unrestrained eroticism? Serious bouts of what illness? The typical symptoms of tertiary syphilis (cardiovascular and neurologic (including blindness)) don't really occur in bouts.
 * In another paragraph you list his contributions to Hindu and Indian philosophy, but I examined some of the best-known books, exactly one dozen. Not a single one had any mention of Manilal:



Yet you have the sentences: "His main works include Atmanimajjan, a collection of poems on the theme of love in the context of Advaita (non-duality) philosophy; ... Pranavinimaya, a study of yoga and mysticism; and Siddhantasara, a historical critique of the world's religious philosophies. His faith in Shankara's Advaita philosophy was the fundamental underpinning of his philosophical thoughts. As he held Eastern civilisation in high esteem, he resisted the influence of Western civilisation and social reform.'" I examined four books on Yoga and mysticism; none made any mention of Manilal:



Given the unreliability of the sources you are using, given also the conspicuous absence of Manilal in the standard books on Indian philosophy and Hinduism, Yoga and mysticism, some authored by the giants of the field: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Gavin Flood, and Mircea Eliade, I do not find Manilal's reputation as a scholar Hinduism, Indian philosophy, or Yoga to be particularly credible. I don't think one rewrite, two or three will do anything to make this article FA worthy as long as you are using the sources you are. If no other (significant) sources are available, then in my view Manilal should not be resubmitted to FAC. Mike Christie has done stalwart work in helping you and improving the article, but ultimately if the sources are no good, our hands are tied. Gazal world: It is not for me to tell you how best to occupy yourself, but this is probably not the best article. I will leave you with one final example. There is a picture of a "ghazal" in Gujarati written by Manilal. It seems like a handwritten draft. The ghazal is a poetic form of Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, not Gujarati. Fine, he has written a Gujarati "ghazal;" I can see of course that it has the basic rhyme pattern of a ghazal: AA, aA, bA, cA, ... and so forth, even though I cannot read a word of the Gujarati language, but a ghazal is much more than a rhyme pattern. (See here). You have not told us what the words mean, not even of the first couplet, the matla. It doesn't help to say that according to one critic his ghazals capture the spirit of Urdu poetry. That is not enough, nor credible. PS I am on vacation, so I won't be coming back to examine your answers and add further comments. I simply don't think the topic and the sources are FAC ready. Best regards, Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for your comments Fowler&fowler. Even if I fail, I would like to try for 2nd FAC. --Gazal world (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This book, published by Oxford University, has detailed discussion on Manilal. There are plenty of sources like this which I haven't used. Thaker's work has been cited in numbers of sources like this. Is he not reliable? Also, Tridip Suhrud's work (his PhD dissertation) has been published by Orient Blackswan (a publisher which has published number of scholarly works). Suhrud's work has 50+ pages long chapter on Manilal. Is he not reliable? (Note that I have used Suhrud original PhD dissertation which is accessible on Internet. I have also that book published by Orient Blackswan which is same as PhD dissertation). What is definition of 'reliable source'? As stated on my user page: "I am [still] new to Wikipedia". --Gazal world (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think your arguments are not vaild.


 * Thaker source: Some minor stylistic deficiencies, inaccuracies or grammar mistakes in a work does not make the whole work an unreliable source. This work is published by the Sahitya Akademi and is regarded as a good scholarly work on Manilal. It is widely cited in other works. I think it fulfills WP:RS criteria. It is not extraordinarily unreliable as you say. You may not have liked Thaker's writing and it does not mean that it become unreliable. Let others evaluate Thaker source  themselves.
 * Why did only his "Gujarati co-students" exploit ...? Why not the Marathi-speaking students, the Parsis, the Jews, the Anglo-Indians at Elphinstone? Is this question worthy? His Gujarati co-students did what they did. You can simply understand that his Gujarati co-students exploited. May be other might not knew this or did not exploited the issue. Thats all. Your other questions are bad as well. For example, Why was his private life inconsistent with his professions? (He was not a priest.) Here professions does not mean occupations. Here it means: "a declaration of a belief in something". The disease, syphilis, which took his life is OK to be mentioned in the lede when he suffered it for years. The bouts of the illness you questioned is syphilis. If you have problem with particular wording, it can be corrected. If you can't understand words, nobody can help.
 * I do not find Manilal's reputation as a scholar Hinduism, Indian philosophy, or Yoga to be particularly credible. I think you missed Gujarati language sources too. And a list of references mentioned in the article. If a dozen books not mention him, it does not mean that he is not a credible. There are other dozens which mentions him. It is just wrong expectation on your part that each and every Indian scholar should be mentioned in those selected dozen works selected by yourself.
 * The ghazal is a poetic form of Arabic, Persian, and Urdu, not Gujarati. Again, ignorance on your part. Ghazal is a widely used poetic form in Gujarati literature and large number of Gujarati poets have written large number of Gujarati ghazals. See Mareez, Gazalvishwa (a Gujarati ghazal poetry journal), Shayda Award, Vali Gujarati Gazal Award, Kalapi Award to know extent of Ghazals in Gujarati. See for some info.
 * You have not told us what the words mean, not even of the first couplet, the matla. Again, ignorance on your part. The ghazal in that image has its own article, Amar Asha.
 * If you are ignorant of things, or you feel that something is not enough, or you feel something should or should not be in a particular way; it is bad on your part to impose your own expectations. Your personal ignorance and preferences should not hinder others. Enough reliable sources are available on Manilal and the facts in the article are supported by those sources. So if one feels he should pursue FAC, he can. Be encouraging and be helping. Regards,-Nizil (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you make three criticisms: the lead has problems, some of which are because of Thaker's problems; Manilal is not a well-known scholar, implying that the article exaggerates his stature; and Thaker is an unreliable source.

I agree the lead needs some work, and I'll make a pass at it when I've copyedited the rest of the article.

I don't think the article currently asserts unreasonable prominence for Manilal. There are a couple of positive opinions quoted, such as According to Jhaveri, with these magazines, Manilal emerged as the acknowledged master of Gujarati prose, but this is attributed inline so unless Jhaveri is an unreliable source I don't see an issue with it. There's also Their public debates, carried on in the pages of Manilal's Sudarashan and Neelkanth's Jnanasudha, are considered unparalleled in Gujarat's history of reflective literature, and I think that would be worth attributing to Thaker inline -- I'll make that change after posting this reply. I tried searching Google Books and Google Scholar and Manilal is discussed enough for me to believe the fairly limited claims in this article.

I am not an expert in this field, but I can't see a reason to say Thaker is unreliable. The publisher seems to be a respected publisher of scholarly literature. Thaker's language is sometimes very positive, but very little of that is apparent in the article. I know so little about the field that I can't be completely confident, but unless you have specific reasons to think Thaker should be rejected as not an RS I can't see why we shouldn't use him.

When this goes back to FAC your concerns can be aired again, and perhaps a reviewer who knows more than I do about Gujarati literature and Vedantic philosophy will comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment F&F. You are setting impossible conditions on the basis of a misprision. The article is about Manilal's contribution in Gujarati to that culture's understanding of their Hindu and Indian-philosophical heritage. To expect that any works in Gujarati, Marathi, Tamil, Telegu, etc.etc., on these topics, unless they are mentioned in  modern (Western) scholarship on the primary Sanskrit texts, lack notability is to utterly miss the point. This is about Gujarati culture, not Indology as an academic programme.Nishidani (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowler I've stayed away from commenting but just noticed that there's talk of resubmitting it to FAC. I'm warning you guys that the article is littered with errors, and I do mean littered. They are errors in paraphrasing and in the sources themselves. Consider the first paragraph of the book:

THE early hours of September 10, 1858 , a baby boy was born in a middle class Sāțhodarā Nāgar family of Nadiad , the biggest town of Kheda District in the State of Gujarat. Members of the family rejoiced at the new arrival and celebrated the occasion in the traditional manner by distributing sweets. The following day, a neighbour , well - versed in astrology , declared that the child would have a brilliant career and would bring lustre to the name of the family. The child ' s father, Nabhubhai , replied with a distrustful smile : “ What brilliant career is a poor humble Brahmin ' s child likely to have ? ” So far as love for learning or taste for literature was concerned, Manilal ' s family had hardly exhibited any inclination for it for generations. His grandfather, Bhailal Dave , was a police subinspector. He earned credit as a prominent person of the community because he spent lavishly on caste - dinners. Nabhubhai inherited a fortune of rupees eleven thousand and a house from his father. Except practising as money - lender and occasionally as priest, he did not follow any regular occupation throughout his life. His school education hardly extended beyond the study of elementary arithmetic and letter - writing. He could not understand or appreciate the benefits of education. Nabhubhai, therefore planned to educate his son , Manilal , in the three R ' s viz. , reading, writing and arithmetic , so that the boy could serve as a clerk ( munim ) in a local trader ' s shop. Manilal was admitted to a primary school at the age of four, where he picked up reading , writing and a little bit of arithmetic. He had aversion to doing sums and remained absent in arithmetic classes. When he completed the primary course he had difficulty in persuading his father to permit him to prosecute his studies in the secondary school. Nabhubhai allowed him to do so reluctantly. Manilal showed good progress in the secondary school. He stood first in the annual examination of the second standard and won a prize. Pleased with his performance, the headmaster granted him promotion ahead to the fourth standard as a special case. But the boy was not happy with this special favour. He passed a sleepless night. Next day, he approached the headmaster with a request through his class - teacher to demote him to the third standard. The headmaster was surprised at this unusual request. He smiled and replied with a pat on his back : “ You are a queer boy. Since you so wish, you may sit in the third standard. ” Sanskrit and Geometry proved stumbling blocks to Manilal ' s progress. He hated cramming rules of Sanskrit grammar. But a teacher helped him overcome this hurdle by means of Laghu Kaumudi, which taught Sanskrit grammar in the form of short sutras ; " in consequence as it were , ” as Manilal put it , he could easily manage Geometry as well .All these years , Nabhubhai tried to pressurize his son to leave studies because the boy did not assist him in the practice of priesthood or in maintaining accounts . Fortunately for Manilal , his teachers intervened and persuaded Nabhubhai to allow him to continue up to the matriculation class .Manilal appeared at the matriculation examination in 1875 . But to the utter surprise of teachers and friends , Manilal , who later turned out to be a Sanskrit scholar of international repute ,and his friend Chhaganlal Harilal Pandya , who translated into Gujarati a stiff work like Kadambarî ( the Sanskrit classic ) , failed in the subject of Sanskrit itself ! Undeterred by this , Manilal worked hard the following year and prepared all the subjects so well that he passed the whole examination with second rank in the University, which entitled him to the award of a couple of scholarships. This enabled him to win his father ' s consent to go to Bombay for further studies. Manilal joined Elphinstone College in the beginning of 1877 and lived in the College Residency.

Please tell me how on earth did you manage to paraphrase that into the first few paragraphs of the personal life section? What astrologer? He was just a neighbor who dabbled. You can't add that sort of hearsay in a biography, unless you are writing creative nonfiction for the New Yorker. What is a brilliant career anyway for a newborn? You say nothing about the grandfather making a fortune which the ne'er-do-well father inherited, and frittered away. And first and second grade in "secondary school?" What shool has that? Do you seriously believe that after receiving a "double promotion" in second grade, that is how the story unfolded of the reversal to an ordinary promotion? What was the James Taylor prize? It was a prize awarded in Bombay University for receiving the best grades in Political Economy and History; otherwise, what is the point of throwing that name at the reader? He received that prize in 1879, not 1877. (See here But seriously folks, you need to be rigorous here. Gazal world, you should have done all this before.  People helping you assume that you've done the basic grunt work. You claim you are new, but you've been around on WP for four years and have 12,000 edits. Why do I have to find all these errors in a few minutes before I head out to a doctor's appointment 75 miles away?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, Fowler&fowler, I hadn't seen the source for that part of the article. I'll take a look through later today. I know you're busy and not editing Wikipedia much, but if you have a chance to look through the rest of the article I'd appreciate it -- I feel fairly confident about the parts I've worked on, but as I said above I'm not familiar with the sources or this field in general so more input is always helpful.  If we can address your criticisms before this article goes back to FAC that would be ideal. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have edited the first paragraph of the biography section; I agree with the comments there though I don't think we have enough in the source to call the father a ne'er-do-well in the article. I will take a crack at the next paragraph but have to head out in a few minutes so it will probably be later today.  Gazal world, could you send me any pages of Thaker that you haven't already sent me that cover the paragraphs down to the start of "Personal life"?  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:52, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, please check your mail. @Fowler: Indeed, he received the James Taylor Prize in 1879. See Gujarati wiki entry on Manilal: મણિલાલ દ્વિવેદી (third paragraph). "1877" was my mistake, not Thaker's mistake. I will correct it. --Gazal world (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. That was added by User:Nizil Shah in August 2014 (See). I am sorry that I could not identify the error. We can add a footnotes for the prize using this. --Gazal world (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the ne'er do well, you are right. My reasoning was: The grandfather was a police sub-inspector (no mean achievement for an Indian during East India Company rule), who left a substantial fortune for that time, Rupees 11,000 and a house.  Today, that money would be at least $200K (a wild guess, but not a crazy one). Normal actuarial assumptions would imply that MND's birth happened not too long after the grandfather's death).  But by that time the father was heard to say, "What brilliant career is a poor humble Brahmin's child likely to have? ” I put two and two together, and concluded he had frittered away the inheritance money, but upon rereading I think he was being customarily modest.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:07, 25 August 2020 (UTC)