Talk:Manilal Dwivedi/Archive 2

More comments
Thanks to Gazal world, I now have the full text of Thaker and will go through the sections of the article I hadn't reviewed against the sources. Starting a new section since I think everything so far is dealt with except for Fowler&fowler's last set of comments.
 * Gazal world, the copy you sent me has a hand-written correction of the birthdate from September 10 to September 26. What's the source for the change?  We can't cite anything but the 10th to Thaker.
 * "September 10" is obviously typographical error. All other writings of Thaker about Manilal say that the birth date is "26 September". We can cite for 26 September. --Gazal world (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

More tomorrow, probably. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edition of the Bombay University Calendar you link to, Manilal is not listed as winning the James Taylor Prize, so I've cut it. I checked the next year's calendar too just in case the dates were wrong and he's not there either.
 * The correct Bombay University link is already there in my post above. Here it is in cite form:   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:37, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right; and when I look his name shows up in the earlier editions too. I don't know how I missed that; must be the drugs I had at the doctor's earlier today.  I've cited the 1880 edition because that's closer to the date, though I can't get the link to the right page to work.  Thanks for the correction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If you want to use the 1880 Calendar, the citation is:  I wonder if you were using the Google play format instead of (the old) Google books ...  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Now, we will have to change this: However, he was ranked second in examinations at Bombay University the following year, winning the James Taylor Prize. Manilal received James Taylor Prize in his BA examination in 1979 1879. --Gazal world (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * =1879 Nishidani (talk) 11:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are attempting bandaid cures. You need to nurse this article by showing curiosity about its subject (MND) and his environment and stop worrying about the FAC.  Are you aware of the subject disciplines the students had to study, how many exams they had to take, the books they were studying then, what the standards were? Without that basic curiosity, and explanations driven by it, dropping names, "James Taylor Prize" or "Taylor James Prize," is devoid of meaning; it is all the same to a reader. You need to familiarize yourself with the educational system at that time. If you don't have the knowledge, you will not be able to write anything that is at the same time precise and relevant.   In 1879, i.e. 22 years after 1857, when by an act of the British Parliament, the first three universities in India, Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, were founded, there were three exams (at least at Bombay) a student had to take:  a) Matriculation exam, a prerequisite for admission to BA, b) the First Examination in Arts/Sciences taken at least three terms after admission to the BA program (there were two terms in every academic year: first (starting November), second (starting June), c) the BA exam (after passing which one received the BA degree; it needed a prerequisite of six terms (i.e. three years)).  See page 53 of the calendar and several pages thereafter. See also the First Exam in the Arts at Bombay University in 1879, (here)
 * In my view, Thacker is not an adequate source.    Anyway, with a poor source, you need help from other sources, even if the information they provide is tangential or incomplete.  For that, you have to read pretty much everything related to the subject matter.  Thus far you don't give me the impression you have.  I'm encouraging you to read more.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:35, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And here is the Political Economy exam, and for several pages thereafter the History exam and another Political Economy exam, some combination of which MND took in November 1879, receiving the James Taylor prize. You can certainly use a screenshot and add a picture. (All this has to be done judiciously)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  13:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this wonderful insight, especially about the educational system of that time; I didn't know that. Honestly speaking, I have no any academic background, nor I studied in humanities. I passed my B.Sc (Chemistry & Physics) & M.Sc (Physical chemistry) with poor scores. I studied in Gujarati medium (You can assume it from my extremely fractured English). Coming to the Thaker, as far as Thaker's Gujarati works concern, I can say, he was a brilliant scholar in Gujarati literature. All the later scholarship on MND refers Thaker's work as an authentic source. Thaker studied MND for 10 years to write his dissertation. Any way, what you think about Tridip Suhrud? I have cited his work also in the article, but have not used much than Thaker. Thank you again. --Gazal world (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your background is fine. What I am suggesting is not anything academic, but simple sleuthing, rummaging, in the sources to get a nugget of information here, another nugget somewhere else. Can you email me the section of Thacker on MND's education? I will check in the evening. Thanks. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * At work so can't post much, but Gazal world, I'd suggest sending F&f the entire ms of Thaker's book -- I would like him to be able to comment on any part of it he wants to follow up on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:53, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * --Gazal world (talk) 13:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Gazal world, I'm going to pause working on this and give Fowler&fowler a chance to make any further comments, and you to reply. My role has been to make the material in sources you've found work together in the article; I don't know the material well enough to be part of selecting what should go in or which sources should be used. I'll keep commenting on the talk page until we see some sort of consensus here, and then I can take another pass through the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Mike. No problem. You have already done a great job for me, for which, I know, the 'thanks' word would not enough. --Gazal world (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and  I have received the pdf of the printed book.  I agree Mike: you shouldn't be asked to organize and polish something whose "ingredients" are not in place.  After skimming the first couple of chapters, my first thought is: the article needs is a Background section.
 * It seems that despite his opposition to Western ideas, Manilal was very much the product of the British educational system in India.  I think if you use the intro from Taker's book which I have NPOV'd below and supplement it with the education section of Company rule in India which I had written years ago), but which is still mostly accurate, you'll be fine.  See" Company rule in India.

Background to the life and work of Manilal Nabhubhai Dwivedi

In 1814, Christian missionaries obtained for the first time Government's permission to start an English School in Bombay. In 1817, the first English School was opened in Calcutta by the joint effort of Raja Ram Mohan Roy and David Hare. In 1835, Macaulay pleaded for imparting English education to Indian people and, in 1854, the policy was confirmed by Charles Wood's dispatch. In 1856, Elphiostone Institute, which was the Alma. Mater of several pioneers of social and educational activities in Gujarat and Maharashtra, was divided into Elphinstone College and Elphinstone High School. In 1857, Universities were esta­blished in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. Subsequently, colleges were started in Gujarat at Ahmedabad, Baroda, Bhavnagar and Junagarb. As the State patronized it and leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Roy espoused its cause, demand for English education went on increasing. Scores of schools were opened by Christian missionaries. 1 n 1861-62, there were 1153 schools run by Christian missionaries in India, with 1,02,000 students on the rolls. Christian missionaries criticized the stagnant state of Hindu religion, which they felt abounded in irrational restrictions, and harmful social customs. The missionaries preached praying to one omnipotent God without the means of idols, advocated the abolition of the caste-system and free­dom of choice for individuals in marriage.

As a consequence, this new mode of education created a class which tended to be averse to Hinduism; on the other hand, there was a large majority whose religious practice was restricted to the rigid observance of age-old customs.

Durgaram Mehtaji (I 809-1876), a primary teacher in Surat, was the pioneer of social reform in Gujarat though he had not received any English education. He pleaded for widow-remarriage, denounced prevailing superstitions and insisted on rational thinking. Then came Narmadashanker (I 833-J 886), Mahipatram Rupram Neelkanth (1822-1891), probably the first Gujarati to travel abroad, and Karsandas Mulji (1832-1871), editor of Satyaprakiish, who exposed the corrupt practices of Jadunathji Maharaj of the Vaishnav sect and won in the libel case brought by the Maharaj in the Bombay High Court. They were the outstanding social leaders of Gujarat who preached and practised reforms like widow-remarriage, the abolition of caste and freedom from superstitions, etc. Narmad went to the extent of putting his life at stake for the propagation of social reform.

But most of these reforms were superficial in the sense that they lacked religious force to sustain them. Raja Ram Mohan Roy founded the Brahmo Samaj in Bengal to make up this deficiency. As an offshoot of the Brahmo Samaj, the Prarthana Samaj was established in Bombay and Ahmedabad by educated moderates like Ramkrishna Bhandarkar, Narayan Chandavarkar, Shanker Pandurang Pandit, Bholanath Sarabhai, Mabipatram Rupram and his son Ramanbhai. But it could hardly do any­thing substantial for the preservation of Aryan culture, as was done by the Arya Samaj to an extent. The social and educa­tional activities of the latter created a kind of awareness of one's own culture; but since its religious basis was dogmatic and the main field of its activities was Northern India, Gujarat felt the little tangible impact of its activities in the earlier phase.

Narmad took the lead in this direction. While writing Rajyarang, a history of the rise and fall of the great empires of the world, he went back to the study of Indian culture and philosophy, which forced him to change his views. He almost repudiated his own radical views on social reform and pleaded for the rejuvenation of Hindu religion by means of a counter-reformation movement. But before his crusade could gather momentum he passed away. His mission was taken up by Manila!.

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  13:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Fowler. Thanks. You are right. Even all the prominent writers of the 'Pandit Yuga' were the product of Bombay University. So it is a good idea to write 'background' section. As I told you, I am not good in English, and hence I am poor in paraphrasing too. I always get my articles paraphrased at GOCE OR with the help of my fellow Wikipedians. Can you help me to write 'Background' section ? --Gazal world (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK Fowler. So I have prepared the following version for "Background". It still needs revision and rephrasing. Please help. --Gazal world (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The first English School opened in Bombay in 1814, and in Calcutta in 1817. Macaulay's plea for an English style educational system for Indians, proposed in 1835 was confirmed in policy two decades later. In 1856 the Elphinstone Institute was split into a college and a high school and proved to be the alma mater of many Gujarati and Maharashtrian pioneers of education and social activities. The following year universities were established in Bombay, Madras and Calcutta. Missionaries, hostile to the Hindu caste system,  its concomitant social customs such as arranged marriages, also played an important role, running 1153 schools with 101,000 students by  1861-2.


 * Among Gujarati social reformers, some lacked an English educational background. Durgaram Mehtaji (1809-1876), for example opposed superstitions in the name of rationality and advocated widow remarriage. Other outstanding leaders emerged: Narmad (1833-1886), Mahipatram Rupram Neelkanth (1822-1891) and Karsandas Mulji (1832-1871), who won a libel case brought by the Maharaj in the Bombay High Court. They all preached and practised reforms like widow-remarriage, the abolition of caste.


 * Yet their efforts, lacking a religious dynamism, remained superficial in their effects. The deficit was supplied by Raja Ram Mohan Roy's foundation of the Brahmo Samaj in Bengal, though it proved less successful in preserving the Aryan heritage than the Arya Samaj. They were dogmatic religiously however and only enlivened awareness of regional cultural traditions. Little of this had an impact in Gujarat. There nonetheless Narmad took the lead in this direction. While writing "Rajyarang", on the rise and decline of world empires, he went back to the study of Indian culture and philosophy, and his views changed from social radicalism to a stance that called for the rejuvenation of Hindu religion. On his death, Manilal Dwivedi took up his mantle.
 * Pinging. --Gazal world (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello . I am waiting for your comments. If you could respond here, I would be able to work more on this. --Gazal world (talk) 20:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll take a look later today.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Deeply sorry
I have read through the article. I'm very sorry, but I cannot help in improving it. The main reason is that the article does not have sources that I consider reliable—that is, reliable to the degree that makes me comfortable working with them. I could clean up the prose, I could remove the errors of attribution, but I can't improve the sources. That is the bottom line. I apologize to and  for having created the impression that I was going to help out. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  17:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look -- I'd rather know this now than discover it at FAC. Do I take it you would oppose then at FAC on the basis that the sourcing is insufficient to meet 1(c)? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Fowler. No problem. --Gazal world (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not plan to be a reviewer at FAC, so, FAC is not the issue. It is simply that I never work on articles in which the sourcing is not reliable. I thought I could find some areas indirectly related to his biography for which reliable sources might exist, but I could not really make a cogent case (to myself) for their relevance.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. Gazal world, how do you want to proceed?  I'm not able to judge the sources myself, but if Fowler&fowler has concerns others may too.  I can do one more copyedit pass if you want. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike. I would like to proceed for the FA and see what others have to say about it during the FAC. I am quite confident about sources. I believe that sources like Thaker and Jhaveri (published by the very respected national academy of letters) as well as Suhrud (published by the reputed Orient Blackswan publishing house) are quite reliable sources. Before I proceed to nominate the article, we need to address above two points: 'Background' (if it is necessary to add) and other is 'serious bouts of illness'. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand the objection technically. But I think WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS kicks in here. Nothing to do with F&f's approach. Rather, the sourcing requirement presumes Western scholarly interest, which, over tens of thousands of topics, is not there, but that cannot be a ground for not trying, by the best available local scholarship, to write a cogently informed article on an important regional figure, or reality, and go for FA status. The real objection is that, however important in Gujarat, he wouldn't qualify for an entry into Barry Jones' dictionary of world biography which covers just over 8,500. Wikipedia however wishes to cover the whole field, without selection for global salience. In any case, those watching the page could chip' in to give what we have a thorough ce, and try to press on to produce a an article as close to FA ideals as possible. I undertake to do, for my part, as time allows.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I will make this one last observation here. Is he that notable even in India? Has the Government of India brought out a stamp to commemmorate him as it has Narmad Shankar Dave (Gujarati, b. 1833), Bankim Chandra Chaterjee (Bengali, b. 1838) Bharatendu Harishchandra (Hindi, b. 1850), Govardhanram Tripathi (Gujarati, b. 1855), Mahavir Prasad Dwivedi (Hindi, b. 1864), Nanalal Dalpatram Kavi (Gujarati, b. 1877), Subramanya Bharathi (Tamil, b. 1880), Premchand (Hindi, b. 1880), Kaka Kalelkar (Gujarati, b. 1885), Maithili Sharan Gupt (Hindi, b. 1886), Suryakant Tripathi Nirala (b. 1896). So, he's not in that league by the post-colonial Indian government's standards. What league is he in? What bias is that? Post-colonial-nationalistic-bias? Anyway, all the best to you. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  21:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * All the best to you. You've done a good deal of work beyond the normal call of duty. I should just clarify that I'm a systemic bias aficionado. I keep coming across fascinating stories that are neglected, or appear to be so at a first search, about people. I had reason in an article to mention a certain Pirqoi ben Baboi, very obscure person, who'd slipped from view in mainstream history until a chance discovery pulled a text by him out of a rubbish tip. I don't like redlinks, so I investigated, and came up with Pirqoi ben Baboi. Sure I managed to find a lot on him within recent Jewish scholarship, but outside of that, he wouldn't get a guernsey for notability even by era- or area historians. If I translated Manilal's predicament between modernist reformism and a nostalgia for an idealized ancient indigenous culture into, say, Japanese terms, he would be immediately recognizable and notable as similar to many Meiji second generation conservative reformers who are well known names even to the outside world. India, unlike Japan, has a large range of sub-cultures inflecting the general tradition in diverse ways, and therefore regional figures of historic importance inevitably sink from view in the larger narrative of Indian civilization, certainly as studied by outsiders. Indologists, apart from magnificent exceptions like David Dean Shulman, don't master more than one or two languages outside of Hindi. That's what I mean, here, by bias. The key question therefore is, not whether India honours him with stamps or whatever, but whether he is a major figure in Gujarat history. Still, as I think Gazal world himself would justly recognize, excellence in Wikipedia, as elsewhere, emerges best when tested in the lab of rigorous challenge and argument. Keep up the good work. Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)