Talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty/Archive 1

Article name
Hi Grayfell, this is with reference to the conversation I had with you on your talk page about the redirect from Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra to Thakur Anukulchandra. Thank you for your comments. As mentioned there, I had originally created this page Thakur Anukulchandra only to help partial matches also reach the correct page. About the previous page that existed in this name, I do not know of those authors and am not sure what content they had placed. Whereas the page I had created Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra had not received any disputes from the administrators or others yet. So I would like to believe that the assessment should be done afresh in that matter. Also, talking about the name - the complete name is actually Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. Citing some references below for your convenience : If you notice the titles themselves indicate the name. I am ok with the other page Thakur Anukulchandra not being there. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks and regards. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. Well, one issue that jumps out is that there are multiple spellings of the name:
 * Thakur Sree Sree Anukul Chandra
 * Sri Sri Thakur Anukulchandra
 * Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra
 * As the article Sri points out, there are many more ways of writing the term, but it is mainly an honorific, not a name (see: MOS:HONORIFICS). Wikipedia generally avoids using honorifics. Those sources appear to me to be from Satsang or from satsangees, is that correct? Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral perspective (see: WP:NPOV), meaning that they should not be written from the point of view of followers, nor from detractors. This is especially important for religious topics. No matter what name the article ends up with, Thakur Anukulchandra should remain (as a redirect perhaps) because many outside observers are not going to know to use the honorifics titles. I'm guessing this is why the old article was named that, but I don't know for sure.
 * The article was [deleted January 14 as [[WP:G12]]: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.bahaistudies.net/asma/thakur-anukulchandra.pdf, http://www.readbag.com/bahaistudies-asma-thakur-anukulchandra I don't see this article as being obviously similar, but just as a matter of explanation, WP:COPYVIO and plagiarism are serious issues, and articles should be written in editors' own words. Hopefully that's obvious. Grayfell (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Grayfell. You are right that there is some confusion about the spellings. Unfortunately this arises due to the name being a Bengali one. In Bengali the name Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra is written as শ্রীশ্রীঠাকুর অনুকূলচন্দ্র where the three words "Sree Sree Thakur" are actually joined together. If they were separate they would appear as "শ্রী শ্রী ঠাকুর" and not শ্রীশ্রীঠাকুর. You can verify from google translate too that the words written separately lead to spaces in the Bengali script. All books written by Anukulchandra are signed as শ্রীশ্রীঠাকুর and not শ্রী শ্রী ঠাকুর (i.e without the spaces). Citing Hence all the three words Sree Sree Thakur are part of the same name. If we do need to get rid of it, we should probably just keep "Anukulchandra" and not "Thakur Anukulchandra", so that atleast it is one complete word. Hope I am making sense. As far as neutrality is concerned, I completely agree, this title or article should not be written from a biased perspective. There indeed are references from other non-devotees - some being
 * and
 * here.

As far as plagiarism is concerned, I have written content on my own. I hope the other contributors are doing the same. I will try my best to ensure any issues are pointed out myself. Regards. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, works for me, I've moved the article back. Having some redirects are a good thing, so I do not think we need to get rid of any. WP:REDIRECT explains this, and it's more art than science. Wikipedia has gotten much better recently at suggesting alternatives based on "misspellings", so redirects are less important. It may still be helpful for readers to have redirects for names they find in print. Sri Sri Thakur and Thakur Anukul Chandra, for example, may be worth considering. As you mention, the diversity and complexity of transliteration and transcription is a very common problem also. Redirects should only be spellings found in print or that there's a strong reason to think are common. They should probably not be for simple typos, and rarely more than five or six. I'll leave that up to you, though. Grayfell (talk) 05:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell. Thanks for all the guidance. Regards. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 05:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hi Grayfell, I found a comment mentioning neutrality of this article is disputed after my edit on this page. Please help me understand the section of edit you are referring to so that I can improve my change.Manoj.kumar.nanda (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello. The article should be written in a formal, neutral tone. Wikipedia articles are for believers and non-believers. This means that subjective information about him needs to be attributed to sources, instead of being presented as facts. Simply saying that "sources say" something is not enough, because that is too vague (see: WP:WEASEL). Things which cannot be measured, like love, kindness, wisdom, and so on, are not verifiable. This means that things like "Sorashibala Devi was an ideal lady of the house." do not belong in this article. This must be rewritten to explain exactly who says she was ideal, and what "ideal" means. Otherwise it is only useful for believers, which is not what Wikipedia is for. This is just one example, but I hope you can see what I mean here, as there are many such problems in this article. Does this make sense? Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed that particular line. Also, I have modified a few more sentences to be more neutral. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That is definitely a step in the right direction, thank you. Grayfell (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, I like to refer to this page. I know some people are talking about their point of view. Which specific item/line are you pointing for violating neutrality? Could you please elaborate so that some references could be added. Appreciate your help and support. Thanks sanjibme (talk)

Hi Grayfell, please point out to more specific lines and sentences about Neutrality. I will help with the references, if possible. Thank you. rprosad (talk)

Hi Grayfell, Regarding Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra article or talk here kindly clearly emphasize the lines or statement that violates the essence of Neutrality so that I can contribute to reach to the desired status. Thank you. Msushant1404 (talk)   —Preceding undated comment added 17:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Grayfell, Hi Appreciate if you could please mentioned the particular contents which violates your norms I would be able to give you the references and sources to confirm. I am the regular reader of Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. Regards. Ghana Shyam Giri (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

—Preceding undated comment added 14:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, please stop peppering me with notifications. Stop copy/pasting the "Hi Grayfell" part. I am following this talk page, but this is not the only page on my watchlist, so be patient! I have already explained why I think the article is not neutral above. I gave an example in the hope that it would explain the larger problem. If I was willing to explain every single problem, I could just change it myself, right? I may do that when I have the time, but until then I hope those who wrote the article can help fix the problems.
 * I will give another example, but it is just an example, there are still many problems here. The "Famous Devotees" section uses WP:PEACOCK words, such as "Famous" and "Eminent". If they are not notable enough for their own articles, then they should not be mentioned. Likewise, having simply visited Sree Sree Thakur doesn't make one a "devotee". The quote at the end of that section is too long, as well. It is cherry picked to be flattering and impressive sounding, but what it says could bu summed up to be much, much shorter. I hope that's a useful example.
 * Since there are so many people now posting the same messages, I would remind you that Wikipedia has rules regarding "meat puppetry". If someone has asked you to contribute to this page, please read about that. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Grayfell for the comments. Your comments made sense. I started looking at the sections I contributed (also others sections) in more of a objective way- what is fact and what is opinion and what makes Sree Sree Thakur notable. I have gone through the sections that I have contributed, also few others. Made few mods. Hope this is a move to right direction. Thanks again for guiding to write something objective. rprosad (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.244.95.6 (talk) 22:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The article looks much better. It still has some issues, such as with undue weight and with the reliability of sources for unusual claims. One example which jumps out at me is his gestation time. Being born in the 12th month of pregnancy is very far outside of the scientific mainstream, and this shouldn't be included without an explanation. 10 months, or maybe 45 weeks, is the medically accepted limit (see Postterm pregnancy). Per WP:FRINGE, extreme claims need very solid sources. Since the only sources documenting this are minor publications from obscure publisher and other uncritical works, this will need to be clearly explained as a belief, rather than an accepted fact. Otherwise it will be removed. This is not just to say that the line needs to be changed, but the whole "Birth and childhood" section needs to be rewritten from an impartial perspective. A major part of editing is knowing what to leave out.


 * Also, was the National Medical School in Kolkata renamed or misidentified at some point? If so it may be listed here: Category:Medical colleges in West Bengal. Grayfell (talk) 07:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * This is good. Thanks for all the help throughout. Will look into your further comments. About the National medical school, if I am not wrong it is now called Calcutta National Medical College which was formed as an amalgamation of a few institutes, one of which was National Medical Institute, see But I will confirm with a reference. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Sandippradhan86 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Sree Sree Anukulchandra Chakravarty and the information on this are 100% true. We also put the reference at the bottom. You can validate those. There are more than 10 million followers in the worldwide (majority are in from India) to Him/His Satsang.

Below link says the activities that are happening in Satsang in worldwide(Satsang’s purpose is to promote Dharma, which upholds the existence and growth, to every individual irrespective of age, gender, race, religion, national origin or any other factors that may discriminate in any way) http://www.satsang.org.in/index.php?p=activities_worldwide

If you need any more information, you can ref these below authentic sites Satsang USA: http://satsangamerica.org/ Satsang India: www.satsang.org.in

--Sandippradhan86 (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --2601:441:4300:218E:8167:E09A:951E:3C49 (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC) Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra is regarded as the highest spiritual leader in current India as we speak. His way of life on being and becoming is being followed by at least 15 million people worldwide and growing. In India, there are at least 5000 centers are present. Sree Sree Thakur's Satsang centers are also present in the USA (New York), Canada, Malaysia, Africa, Australia, UK, Singapore, UAE, and others.

Refer the below URLs for the verified Satsang websites in India and the US of Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. India- satsang.org.in USA-satsangamerica.org

You can find the contacts for all the centers across globe and countries on the Satsang India website.

Below is the call center number of Satsang in India. Toll free India- 1800-3450-122

With all being said, I feel there is aa absolute need to keep the page on Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. And wiki needs to get someone from Satsang India (Deoghar) to review and authenticate the content and lock down the article.

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (It's none of those things. Keep.) --  Pepper Beast    (talk)  23:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Dipankar2206 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Because this article depicts information about Sri Sri Thakur Anukul Chandra. More than 10million people across the world follows the Sri Sri Thakur irrespective of any religion. His philosophy intended to build a good human being, no matter which religion he or She will belong. That is why this page would be required to know about Sri Sri Thakur not for only followers but also for non followers. Because if someone's philosophy really would help to build a  good society then definitely curiosity would be there to know about Him.We all should facilitate to spread his philosophy across the world  which will help every religion to grow simultaneously help each individual to achieve success in his or her life. All the information given in this article are true.

Contested deletion
Atreyeemaiti (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... Anukulchandra Chakravarty indeed was a spiritual guru and he has millions of followers across the globe. A few references for the same. 1) The ashram that was founded by him - satsang ashram - is listed as one of the tourist places of the government of Jharkhand (a state in India where the ashram is located) as linked in the references - . This confirms the validation of this institute by a government organization. 2) You can also find the commemorative stamp that was published by the government of India to celebrate his centenary birthday in 1987 which can be found on the wiki page itself of list of Indian stamps - and also the catalogue maintained by the government of India (refer year 1947-2011 and filter by 1987). This confirms the validity of this personality and also the fact that he was a respected individual. 3) You can find the google maps link to the ashram location too. - . Similarly maps links exist for the various centers across the world. This indicates that these are existent places with valid addresses. 4) The main website of the ashram that was founded by him has also been linked in the references -

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --Swapna 1701 (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This is all True information About Sri Sri Thakur. In current situation there are more than 10 Million people follow him across the world. People from every country are following HiM. His philosophy build a good society. So to know About HIM this wiki side is required. And all info placed in this article are true.

Contested deletion
This page should not be deleted as this is a true page about a Guru who was a miracle to an entire society. His teaching, philosophies, ideas of life helped, motivated and saved so many lives. This still continues through his organization. There are millions of followers that live by his principles. Ashaallen25 (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --50.192.248.194 (talk) 01:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC) Facts are to be put at very 1st glance. 1. Sri Sri Thakur Anukulchandra is a simple man with ideologies. His One and only message to people was how to live a happy and prosperous life.He had no Magic powers nor he showed any.He used to say to his disciples how to fight own challenges in a very practical way. (Now a days this is missing with lots of our spiritual leader.)

2. He had said Respect All Religion.All the past prophets are telling the same thing in different way,disrespect to any one of the the Prophets is insult to everyone.(This one line is extremely powerful and help to unite thousands to people who are fighting in the name of religion).

3.He has said to help everyone around you to maintain the harmony on the society.

4.He had extremly foccussed on SADACHAR(HEALTHY HABBITS) .He had written a book on healthy habits which is extremely essential in this generation.

5. He also has shown and told how to love your mother.(Again extremely essential in this generation)

Above are just a few points...There are many many thing which he has pointed out and has shown how to do it. We need his principles,teachings and ideologies in our life to live peacefully.