Talk:Stribodh

First woman magazine in Gujarat
Hi. As I am closely connected with the subject, I am very sure that this magazine was the first magazine in Gujarat devoted to woman welfare. All the scholarly sources in Gujarati language refer this magazine as the first woman magazine in Gujarat. --Gazal world (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , noted; will be copy-editing the portions accordingly. Weird but, the ping did not register with me. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:13, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Winged, aren’t you giving undue weightage to Shukla’s remarks and opinions? We need to cover multiple sources, not single one. — Harshil want to talk? 15:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's no source in English providing WP:SIGCOV of the subject, barring a couple, which does not exclusively draw from Shukla. &#x222F; WBG converse 15:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, if possible please add following details in article. It is from ref. no. 5 (Mehta 2012). I will add more details whenever I get time.
 * From 1857 to 1863, Beheramji Gandhi, Sorabaji Shapurji, Karsandas Mulji, [Mangaldas Nathubhoy|Mangaldas Nathubhai]], Nanabhai Haridas jointly edited the magazine..
 * In 1904, K. K. Kabraji died. Then Shirin Kabraji served as an editor till 1914.
 * Putlibai Jahangir Kabaraji associated with the magazine from 1881 to 1941.
 * Initially the subscription was 3 rupee per year. It was reduced to 1.5 rupee in 1914.
 * Initially, the magazine used to gift a book to the subscriber, who had paid yearly subscription.
 * Initially, most contributors was Parsis. But later other Gujarati writers contributed to magazine; including Dalpatram, Narmad, Janmashankar Buch 'Lalit', Nanalal, Ardeshar Khabardar, Ranchhodbhai Udayaram, Bhogindrarao Divetia, and Harkunwar Dhanji Barbhaya.

Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I will :-)
 * FWIW, can you kindly mail the few pages? Also, ગુજરાતી સાહિત્યનો ઇતિહાસ has an entry on the subject. &#x222F; WBG converse 17:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Surprised, that you know Gujarati. Not 'ગુજરાતી સાહિત્યનો ઇતિહાસ', but the Gujarati Vishwakosh has an entry on 'Stribodh'. I have mailed you. For bibliography, See . Feel free to ask me if you need any help. Cheers. --Gazal world (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can read and understand Gujarati fairly well; speaking and writing skills are quite poor :-)
 * Can you kindly confirm whether the Meherbai referred to in the piece is Dorabji Tata's wife? &#x222F; WBG converse 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , in case you missed my query ;) &#x222F; WBG converse 17:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly confirm whether the Meherbai referred to in the piece is Dorabji Tata's wife? &#x222F; WBG converse 13:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , in case you missed my query ;) &#x222F; WBG converse 17:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This sentence Barring Dalpatram and a couple of others, there were not any mainstream literary figure in their author-rolls which grew worse with the increasing affinity of the literary establishment towards conservative cultural revivalism post the 1870s makes no sense, at least for me. People like Karsandas Mulji, Dalpatram, Mahatma Gandhi, K.M.Mushi, Narmad all were contributors to this magazine. This goes against common sense and thus, it will be appropriate to write that according to Shukla. And frankly, I don't know who is this lady but she doesn't know even a word of Gujarati nor she knows about literary figures of Gujarati. First, translation was wrong and now, this type of opinion which goes against simple facts. -- <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 02:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You are equating the literary establishment with folks, who were primarily social reformers/political activists but simultaneously engaged in producing literary works. M.K. Gandhi or Karsandas can't be treated as figures of creative literature, under any stretch of the definition. Munshi is in the grey territory, at best.
 * Your/my opinion of Shukla does not matter any. She is a Gujarati, who was published in a highly reputed peer reviewed media and has been since extensively cited by other renowned scholars, from across the globe. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 04:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * According to you, Gandhiji was not literary figure. Still, literary era of Gujarati literature was named as Gandhi era. Gandhiji standardised present Gujarati. Gazal world can say more about literature as it is his core forte but this goes against common sense. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And anyone who has atleast basic knowledge of Gujarati can easily say Munshi was prolific writer and author of all time best sellers. Pinging for 3R. — <i style="color:orange; font-family:Brush Script MT">Harshil </i>want to talk? 07:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 3O :-)
 * I guess we agree to disagree about the contribution of Gandhi/Karsandas to the field of creative literature. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Sonal Shukla. She, along with Sujata Patel, is one of the internationally reputed scholars from India. I have read her several papers on Gujarati literature and renaissance, and have cited some of them in my articles. --Gazal world (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I know Sonal Shukla. She, along with Sujata Patel, is one of the internationally reputed scholars from India. I have read her several papers on Gujarati literature and renaissance, and have cited some of them in my articles. --Gazal world (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

DYK
Somebody take this to DYK. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 16:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 07:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 'First magazine in India' or 'first magazine in Gujarat'..? --Gazal world (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarified. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 14:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

copyedit
Hey,, I've copyedited, would you take a look to ensure I haven't introduced error? --valereee (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for the copy-edits. A nicer read, now ;)
 * But, are you certain about (a) replacing 'conducive' with 'open' and (b) about the framing of the very last line in the reception section? (Characterize is as - ?) &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 19:46, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * WBG, the framing of the last line is exactly the kind of thing I want to be sure I haven't "fixed" in a way that introduced error. :) It had been In light of the aforementioned themes, Stribodh's primary purpose is now deemed as to merely conform women to then-prevalent standards of patriarchy. It viewed women as deserving of chivalrous treatment from men and not fit enough to engage in public discourses about social reforms and I changed it to In light of the aforementioned themes, scholars now deem Stribodh's primary purpose as to merely conform women to then-prevalent standards of patriarchy and characterize it as viewing women as deserving of chivalrous treatment from men but not fit enough to engage in public discourse about social reforms. I can only get to the abstracts of the sources, so if that's a change that is incorrect, I'm totally open to whatever is the best way to say it!! For conducive...usually I'd say a man's past experiences would be conducive to him being open to reforms, or an environment is conducive to it. But a man himself isn't conducive to gender reforms, unless he's a leader so influential that he creates a nationwide environment conducive to gender reforms. A man is open to the idea of gender reforms. But you're much more familiar with the article, the sources, etc., and if you feel conducive is the correct word, go for it!
 * Agree about open vs conducive; nixley explained. I am changing the last line a bit, though . &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 20:17, 26 December 2019 (UTC)