Talk:Brahmo

Merge
I can see no good reason why this article should be separate from Brahmo Samaj. It clearly describes the same subject, but seems to have many features of what is called a POV fork. Please provide a rationale for its separate existence. Frankly, the statement "Brahmos refers to adherents (members) of the Brahmo Religion whereas Brahmo Samaj refers to 'followers' of the Brahmo Samaj" seems to me to be nit-picking. Paul B (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Paul. May I enquire if we are to conduct this debate here or at Talk:Brahmo_Samaj or somewhere else entirely? May I also convey (humbly) that the point you raise above is a "legal" point concerning also Judgements of Superior Courts of India and British Empire - and is now (somewhat belatedly) being reflected in WP after the latest Judgement of May 2004. These issues /sources are well (and cautiously) cited on this page Brahmo. I can refer you not only to these Judgments but also to debates in India's Constituent Assembly as well as Parliament considering these matters. Some of these are available via the homepage of the website http://brahmosamaj.org also. Legal matters always involve tremendous "nit picking" especially when matters of faith or property or marriage or inheritance or adoption or guardianship or minority status etc etc are concerned. Concerning POV forks, we are striving to maintain NPOV on this article,as well as WP:CITE WP:V WP:RS etc - we shall reach there fairly rapidly (being a new start without old baggage) - you may care to examine Brahmo Samaj for compliance with the same as well as your own POV which you had so well and forcefully conveyed to User:SlRubenstein. Yvantanguy (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Paul, others In addition to the above,I have added some citations to Brahmo/Brahmo Samaj distinction in this article. If you want more legal clarifications we may contact Mr.Milon Banerjee (Brahmo and member of Delhi Brahmo Samaj etc) who is the current Attorney General of India although he is not bound to answer since he represents the State. Yvantanguy (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the article and I really can't understand what point you are making or what legal judgements you are referring to. We don't normally have separate articles on the adherents of a religion and the religious organisation unless there is a very specific reason for doing so. For example if you look up Christadelphians you will find a single article on the beliefs, history and organisations associated with this term. However, if you look up Mormons you will see that we have a separate article on this specific term since it is used in a more complex way than simply as a synonym for an adherent of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The policy is that we keep things in a single article unless it becomes too unwieldy, and so new articles split off from it. The Brahmo Samaj article is currently quite small, so there is no reason to create a spit-article. Furthermore this article seems to be trying to make a specific argument about the meaning of 'Brahmo' which is not always easy to follow. You need to make a clear case for the distinctiveness of this article and the meaning of the legal judgements to which you allude. The article alludes to splits between various factions, which should surely be covered in the main Brahmo Samaj article with clear sub-articles on the specific factions and their particular beliefs.


 * Regarding images, you cannot put a note on the page saying that images are not allowed. That is contrary to policy. You may legitimately debate the inclusion of particular images, but cannot make ex cathedra assertions about what other editors are or not allowed to do. I have no idea what you mean when you claim that "Mr.Mozoomdar (in our view) is not a Brahmo". Who is "us" ("our view") in this sentence? Nor do I understand your comment "had Mr. Barlow uploaded an image of Debendranath Tagore to the Brahmo Samaj page there would have been uproar." There have been images on the page for years, none of which were uploaded or added by me and none of which caused "uproar". Perhaps you can explain why an image of Debendranath Tagore is unacceptable, while images of Roy and Sen seem to be perfectly OK. I assume that you belong to a specifically icon-averse (for want of a better word) faction which traces its beliefs to Debendranath Tagore. That's fine, but you have to make that clear, and to simply explain that point of view rather than presenting it as "the truth". Paul B (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Paul. I shall try to reply to you to the best of my ability. But first can we settle where to Talk, since I find myself chasing you all over the place (or vice-versa). Firstly the Brahmo Samaj is NOT the "organisation" for Brahmos. In fact the Brahmo Samaj is not a monolithic "church" but a loose unregulated federation of PLACES for Congregation. In fact any imposition of organisation violates Brahmo principles (I dont want to debate this since it is pretzel logic). I am puzzled that you keep referring to Christian pages I am unfamiliar with in these discussions. I am not expert enough to comment on contents of those pages. If there are any "specific" WP violation issues we shall try and address them to the best of our ability.


 * Let me list them out as I understand your WP objections:-
 * (1) That "POV Fork" is involved. Someone has already tried to explain this to you as follows:-
 * a) That if we are striving for NPOV in Brahmo such issue is contraindicated.
 * b) That as per us (it is not my faith's "truth" - but "fact" as per WP norms as we understand it - namely final Judgements of highest courts of India) "Brahmo" means adherents of Brahmo religion to exclusion of all religions - whereas "followers of Brahmo Samaj" (as say defined in the Hindu Code of 1955) also includes non-Brahmos such as Hindus, Muslims or Christians etc who "follow" Brahmo principles IN ADDITION to their own religion - and thereby do not separate from their own religion (like Hinduism, Islam etc.)
 * The meat of this statement has been there on "Brahmo Samaj" article unchallenged for quite some time now and Brahmos seem not to dispute it. The concept of "Brahmo" on the Brahmo Samaj page is entirely different - as cited by User:P.K.Niyogi it is from Sivanath Sastri 1911/1912 book meaning "worshipper of One True God" which definition did not take into account these Judgements and as such this definition is "per incuram" and hence not settled. Imposing BS's definition on B or vice-versa will kill the spirit of both pages - since the concepts are entirely different - although superficially attractive. The "Brahmo" page when complete will be filled with verifiable encyclopediac "fact" and not pander to "faith". Where do you say lies the problem if I say that I am a "Brahmo" AND also a "Brahmo Samaji" and HENCE need 2 separate non-competing articles to bring out these DIFFERENT aspects properly by complying also with WP policy?
 * (2) The "splits between the factions" will become clearer when "Brahmo" is complete. At present we had barely reached Adi Samaj when this "merge" issue cropped up - had we 3 or 4 days more we would have reached upto the 1878 Sadharan split where all things would have been clear. You cannot expect that a barely week old page like Brahmo should compete with 3 year old pages like Brahmo Samaj. If there is indeed such a WP policy it should be applied ruthlessly. Alternatively we can reinsert Sniperz11's "inuse" tag for 10 days at "Brahmo". I shall reply to your para 2 separately Yvantanguy (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not "chasing me all over the place" at all. Relevant comments are on relevant pages. I am referring to Christian sects as examples of policy and practice. I thought that was obvious. You don't have to be expert on the detailed theologies of those groups. In fact, that's beside the point. It's about what is the most encyclopedic approach to a topic, one that explains in a clear scholarly way the relevant debates, rather than presents the world-view of a particular group. I think the distinction you are making here are very unhelpful for reasons of clarity and information about the historical development of beliefs, but of course you should continue to add to the article for a few days to improve it. Court judgements do not determine what is "fact" as such, they apply to specific matters under legal dispute in specific jurisdictions, that's all. They can't change history. You are still being very unclear about the specific content of the legal decisions you are referring to. Paul B (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Barlow. It was not obvious to me at all that you were referring to Christian sects as examples of policy and practice. I am not really interested in learning the policies or practices of every Christian sect you are familiar with. This may have something to do with grammar and the different ways we use tense. I can understand Sniperz11 quite easily but I have problems with your phrasing. For example I find that your requirement for "encyclopedic" requires there to be controversy (ie. debate) whereas in India "encyclopedic" would mean important noteworthy subjects covered in depth (subject to availability of apportioned space in the encyclopedia). For example there could be Mr.X a thoroughly bland individual with a bland uncontroversial life who did something extraordinary which is universally admitted to be his doing. Why should we manufacture relevant debate for this man in an encyclopedia? Let me take the legal example  previously cited by Ronosen to Sniperz11 on this page. The Privy Council in 1903 examined 3 issues in matter of Sardar Dyal Singh Majithia.


 * A) Was Sardar Dayal Singh an admitted Sikh whose family were priests of Golden Temple Amritsar (Holiest shrine of Sikddom) a Hindu? The court examined various matters including that he by all accounts drank liquor and ate beef etc.


 * B) If so, did Sardar Dyal Singh who "followed" Brahmoism (but did not actually convert to Brahmoism) cease to be a Sikh or Hindu as the case may be?


 * C) Are Brahmos Hindus?


 * The said judgement (a very long and detailed Judgement which was closely argued) usually cited as "Bhagwan Koer & Ors v. J.C.Bose and Ors (31 Cal 11 - which is enough to access this document in any standard Indian Legal library - not yet on the net) was brought by widows of Sardar Dyal Singh versus Acharya J.C.Bose - A Brahmo preacher - It was an inheritance matter. The findings were:-


 * A) Sikhs are Hindus and nothing but Hindus. The fact of his drinking and eating beef did not exclude him from Hinduism because it is permitted under Hinduism which is a religion of great elasticity and catholicism etc. (I am quoting from memory).


 * B) By not actually converting to Brahmoism but only "following" the Brahmo teachings and principles and way of life - Sardar Dyal Sigh did not become a Brahmo and did not cease to be a Hindu as a "follower" of Brahmoism. ergo "A Hindu by following Brahmoism does not cease to be a Hindu".


 * C) Brahmos (the religionists NOT followers) are held to be mainly NOT Hindus although there are a few (small minority) who may be considered still as Hindus by Hindus. (This is the concept of exclusion from Hinduism by the Hindu community). So the anusthanic (non-Brahmins with non-Brahmanical rituals) Brahmos were held / found to be excluded from Hinduism by Hindus (and hence non-Hindu) - whereas the ana-anusthanic (ie. Brahmin - like Tagores and RamMohun Roy but NOT Keshav Chunder or P.C.Mazoomdar ) Brahmos were still accepted by Hindus despite the fact that they were also Brahmos and also optionally Hindu (like dual citizenship).


 * For Brahmos point (C) is the key finding of the Privy Council - it has never been overturned - it still holds the field today - as for eg. in a 2001(?) Supreme Court Judgement of India which finds the Ramakrishna Mission to be Hindu - despite all their protestations that they were not

and that Ramakrishna Paramhansa was "never a Hindu". In May 2005 the Supreme Court particularly declined to re-examine Bhagwan Koer whether Brahmos are Hindus in West Bengal - after a 30 year battle which went to 11 Judges of SC (2nd Highest Constitution Bench ever Constituted).


 * I hope that this shines some small light on the legal questions and particular issues. For example whereas a Sadharan Brahmo Samaji can have only 1 spouse, Adi Brahmos are still "potentially polygamous" and can have a 100 - there is no law in place which makes bigamy a crime for them in India. (qv. Lord Sinha peerage case - use google)


 * Thanks Yvantanguy (talk) 21:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For Edit2020, You asked if the statement is a direct quote? Substantially yes, the actual quote being "A Hindoo does not cease to be a Hindoo by following the Brahmo Samaj" or suchlike. By legal induction it is extended to all other religions to mean that non-Brahmos by following Brahmo Samaj (ie, Samaj as distinguished from Brahmoism) do not cease to be retain their faith. Although there is some old controversy on this in the context of Keshub Sen's 1873 remarks which was settled by this Privy Council decision. The interesting thing about this decision is that it was in the particular case of a Founder Trustee of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj - Sirdar Doyal Singh of Umritsar as per the 1880 Trust Deed, leaving some doubt over the claim of Sadharanites (ie. Keshav-ite development) to be classified as Brahmo. Yvantanguy. Yvantanguy (talk) 06:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yvant, if you refer to court judgements or Brahmo policies and doctrines, I request you to please cite the exact link, rather than the domain... this is in line with WP:CITE policy. Another thing, this isn't a court of law, and we dont nitpick or be legally or politically correct - the main aim is to inform readers, and i think that can be effectively done even if the pages are merged, and probably even better... the distinctions, if any can be emplhasised on even if they are merged, and considering the similarities, merging will be an extremely good idea. In the future, if you're referring to any judgements or books or cites, please have the courtesy to link them.


 * Another thing, by your comments on the different talk pages, specifically the language and grammer, I assume that you're a Brahmo Samaji. This is a good thing, since it tends to give a better and more accurate outlook to the page. However, please note that this should not turn into an Ownership of the article, which wikipedia discourages. Also, other editors will not have the same amount of knowledge as you, so if you're making an edit or comments, bear in mind that we may need a bit of educating in this regards, or links to the reliable sources that substantiate the informaion or point you're making.


 * Lastly, you keep stating that these issues will be clear when the page is complete... unfortunately, I dont see anything here that leads me to change my opinion. Could you give an approximate time we should wait for this page to be 'complete' (or at least, stable). Cheers.  Sniperz 11 C @ S 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with PaulB that we dont need two articles, one for an organisation and another for its adherents unless the content in both articles can be exceedingly large and to a degree distinct from each other and neither is the case here. I really have difficulty understanding Yvantanguy's arguments. it is time the articles be merged and improved.  Docku: “what up?”  14:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Issues
I have a few suggestions for improvement of this page, irrespective of the debate above...

1. Context - There is no context in many cases. For eg, the notability section has information that has no introduction, and even more stuff that has no use in this page. the whole page faces the same problem. 2. Lead section - There is no lead section or definition, which leaves the reader in the lurch. Please try and create a coherent lead section which defines Brahmo, and provides appropriate info, like approx number of adherents, differences from the Samaj, and other important points. Please note that these points must be elaborated in teh main body. The lead section is basically a condensed version of the page, where each section is compressed into a sentence or two (this is a rule of thumb, not official policy). 3. Infobox Needed 4. Pictures 5. History Section - Needs an origins/history section. 6. Referencing - needs more extensive referencing, esp in text citations. Also, please provide exact links, not domain links (ie, not just brahmosamaj.com, but the specific page within that site). Also, some of the references on the text can be converted using the tags. 7. Prose - where to start on this one... Well, for one, A single verbatim quote doesn't a section make. at most, it can be a cite, or an interesting quote. But you'll still have to expand on it and provide an explanation of what is being talked about. The readers are dumb. Assume that and write the section like you'd explain it to a six year old. Second, grammar needs to be improved drastically. 8. Duplication? - Looking at the sections, I see that everything after the timeline is almost the same, namely, variations and different explanations of Brahmo philosophy and doctrine. Thats fine, but why do we need 3000 characters and 5 sections to explain something that can be done in one section. Please compress it, otherwise, the readers will skip the whole part. Also, if there is a difference in the philosophies within these sections, they must be explained. A lead para for the section is a must. 9. Scope - Most importantly, what is this article about? Is it about the Brahmo religion? Or is it about the Adherents, namely Brahmos? This needs to be decided and the article focus be suitably changed. Right now, a lot of the confusion in the article is arising out of this uncertainty. I suggest making the scope about the Brahmo religion itself, with a section devoted to the adherents. That seems the best bet for me, and if well developed, can warrant its own page, and save from merge.

If anyone has suggestions, please add them. I'll also add suggestions as and when they come to mind.  Sniperz 11 C @ S 18:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Sniperz11. Thanks for your inputs. The Brahmo Samaj talk page is overflowing and slowly the old timers are drifting in. You can appreciate this problem, For eg. "Sikh" refers to "Sikh" Religion - ie. Sikhism and to "Sikhs" the adherents. Same is with Brahmo but with one difference all Brahmos are not Bramo Samajis and vice-versa. So eventually you need at least 3 pages like so (probably) i)Brahmoism - the Religion and set of beliefs, ii)Brahmo for "adherents", and iii)Brahmo Samaj for "followers" of Brahmoism, roughly equating to Sikhism, Sikh, Sikhs. The bloody problem then is Brahmos. If Brahmo also had Brahmos then it makes the job easier. Or no ?? Yvantanguy (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindu tags
Since you people accept Rabindranath Tagore's view on Brahmo Samaj being a part of Hinduism, you should not have any objections about Hindu project tags. There is no Brahmo peoject, nor do I see the need for one - even if it is formed it should be sub-project under Hindusim project. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Jayanta1952, Who exactly do you mean by "you people"? What are Rabindranath's views on Brahmo Samaj that we accept or should accept? How is this "Brahmo" page concerned with "Hinduism"?. Certainly the Brahmo Samaj article may be concerned with Hinduism or Islam or Christianity. But if you cared to read the contents of this page Brahmo it is not about Hinduism or Rabindranath, it is about Brahmo religious adherents. If Rabindranath was a notable Brahmo, he would be included in this page. If you can establish this please add his name with the appropriate citation. You may see that Satyendranath's name is on this page already (added by me, I think) so there is no bias against the Tagores. Accordingly I am reverting the Hindu tags you added here and also on Brahmoism while retaining the India tags. Kindly discuss and be assured that my edits are as NPOV as possible under the circumstances and not biased towards (against) any particular Samaj and nor do I or You "own" this page. Let us work as per Wikipedia policy only and not post uncharitable remarks against other editors on Talk Pages or User pages. Yvantanguy (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The project tags merely identifies a particular page with certain larger objectives. The Hindu project tags are there on the Talk:Brahmo Samaj page for a long time. While you washed it off clean and put up fresh matter on the main page, you have left the Hindu project tags untouched. Are not Brahmo Samaj, Brahmos and Brahmoism all about the same idea. Then why this duality? If you want to claim that Brahmos are not Hindus (Ramakrishna Mission once claimed it was not Hindu in Supreme Court) then remove the tags from the Brahmo Samaj page also. Till then, let the tags remain on all the three pages. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Brahmos as seen by Hutom Pyancha
I have placed on this page a satirical piece from Hutom Pyanchar Naksha. An encyclopedia is not meant for eulogies as Landirenzo, one of your group, opines. I am sure, he would agree that it should contain criticism. Kaliprasanna Singha is a well known name and he was no Navabidhani propagandist (unless somebody can cook up a link) I think the picture painted holds good today also. Go to Sadharan Brahmo Samaj on Bidhan Sarani, the Samaj with the highest number of members, throughout the year and you will hardly find a soul there but for Maghotsab there always is a huge crowd for khichuri bhog. I have opened up a new aspect of the Brahmo character. I hope others will expand on this. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 22:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reverted this edit,due to source issues. For the moment these are limited as being "non-English Source". See WP:Veifiability. Yvantanguy (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Further to jayanta1952 reverts. I cite WP Verificability policy. The source "Hutom Pyanchar Naksha" is also a work of fiction and not notable as yet.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources
 * "Non-English sources
 * Policy shortcut:
 * WP:RSUE
 * Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use ::English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of ::an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source ::material has been used correctly. Where editors use non-English sources, they should ensure that ::readers can verify for themselves the content of the original material and the reliability of its ::author/publisher.
 * Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.
 * All the Brahmo editors working on Wikipedia definitely know and/ or understand Bengali. You are definitely reverting not because you cannot check the source but because you do not want an adverse note on the Brahmo page. You should allow this quote to stay so that a discussion on the hypocritical characteristics can be started. That is in the proper spirit of Wikipedia.- Jayanta1952 (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I accept your reservations on the Hinduism tags but please allow this one to stay. It is badly unfair of you to deleet my text again and again. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Jayanta. This refers to these messages and also the note on my Talk page. Please understand, that this is not a personal issue. All of us are bound by Wikipedia Rules and Policy. These policies are not very different from the Trust Principles (1830, 1880 and those of all the modern Samajes located at our Indian cities) which most Brahmos abide by. There is a very good Yahoo group called "brahmoconference" where these things are openly discussed - sometimes very intensely, you can visit there by going to External Links Brahmo Samaj page and join the group. Firstly, I am not a legal person either, it took even me 2 months to understand the rules here and I am still learning. Secondly we are not removing Keshuv Sen's image, we are trying to get the best legal full colour image for him. I request Admin:Ragib to explain this point separately to Jayanta. I cannot undo your reverts (which incidentally is vandalism since you did not properly "discuss" on the Talk page of this article before doing so) since I would be breaking the 3 Revert Rule (which is a fundamental policy of Wiki) whose letter AND spirit must be respected. Lastly, it is not only Brahmo editors who edit this page, this is an International Encyclopedia project and we must respect ALL the Rules. I would like you to appreciate that the rules/ guidelines / policy I am citing to you are the mildest of the serious violations you are committing. Warm regards. Yvantanguy (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Brahmo Samaj
No, the articles should not be merged. The terms, while related, are about different things. There is already significant confusion about the usage of the terms, and every effort should be made to separate and disambiguate them, not mash them together and add to the confusion--Editor2020 (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Moved conservations that were incorrectly placed above table of contents
Dear Rono, Some Editors of Wikipedia have tagged this article as "Advertisement" and "Unencyclopediac". I dont understand what they mean. Please sort it out before they delete the page. Bikash 69.50.160.154 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Bikash. Thankx for emailing me. It seems that this is spitefulness on the part of an editor Sniperz11 who is associated with the BrahMos missile page. I have left a note on his Talk page. In the meantime we should work on making the page more encyclopedic (whatever that means). We can also seek the help of the wiki India Project editors to guide us betterRonosen (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if you have got the wrong impression from my edits... I did not add the tags out of 'spitefulness'. The tags were added simply because the prose of the article was unlike what an encyclopedic entry should be, namely, providing enough context and introduction to readers (who mostly will not know about the topic), as well as writing in a clear, NPOV way. You needn't have worried about deletion. I have no powers of deletion, and any such action would have to be done by an administrator or only after a discussion about the page itself.


 * I can see that the article has changed much since I added the tag, and looks much better since then. I have removed the tags, and replaced them with maintenance tags that should help bring editors to the page to help you improve it. I think your idea of asking WikiProject India members for help is great. for more help on how to make this page better, you can also consult the Manual of Style. Another thing, make sure that apart from having links to other pages on this page, there are pages that link to this page. That is the best way to get editors to improve the page and more readers as well.


 * However, I still think that this page would be better served by merging it with the Brahmo Samaj page... they would complement each other quite well. The Brahmo Samaj lacks info about the Brahmo philosophy, while this page lacks info about Brahmo Samaj history. Both pages can do with some expansion. My opinion is that you can use the info in this page and create a couple of new sections for the Brahmo Samaj page. However, that is not my call to make, and I'll recuse myself from starting such a discussion.


 * I hope that answered some of your questions. Please feel free to contact me if you have any problems or need help. Cheers. T/@ Sniperz11 editssign 01:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Sniperz11, Thanks for your help, advice. We shall try our best to bring Brahmo upto acceptable wiki standards. Please keep checking that page every 2 days or so and post on the Talk page there. Actually there is a distinction between Brahmo(s) and Brahmo Samaj. Brahmos refers to adherents (members) of the Brahmo Religion whereas Brahmo Samaj refers to "followers" of the Brahmo Samaj (qv. Hindu Code 1955). So whereas all Brahmos are Brahmo Samajis, the reverse is not necessarily true, and which is why Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj cannot be merged and in fact will differ at certain places. However, this has nothing to do with the BrahMos missile and I foresee a disambigunation page for Brahmos sometime in the future. Cheers.Ronosen (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Bikash,
 * We have to improve the content on the page. Add infoboxes, images, and citations. Then we have to check all those spelling and grammatical things. After that we have to find associated "Brahmo type" pages and add links from those pages to this article so that interested people can start editing this page. Sniperz11 point about Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj (commonalities / differences) has to be brought out so the pages are not merged. Bikash please create a wiki user identity.Ronosen (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ronosen, I couldn't really understand what u meant by the below sentence:
 * "'Brahmos refers to adherents (members) of the Brahmo Religion whereas Brahmo Samaj refers to 'followers' of the Brahmo Samaj (qv. Hindu Code 1955). So whereas all Brahmos are Brahmo Samajis, the reverse is not necessarily true'"


 * Does this mean that all Brahmos are a part of the Brahmo Samaj, but all Brahmo Samajis are not Brahmos? Thanks in Advance.  Sniperz 11 C @ S 10:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Sniperz11, Yes that is substantially correct. All Brahmos (as defined in this article) are Brahmo Samajis, but not all Brahmo Samajis are necessarily Brahmo. A Brahmo has only his Brahmo religion (to exclusion of all other religions) but a Brahmo Samaji can be a Hindu or Muslim or Christian who "follows" the Brahmo way of life. A crude analogy would be a Hindu who follows Sikhism or Buddhism without ceasing to be a Hindu. The usual example cited is that of Sardar Dyal Singh College Majithia a Sikh (whose family were heridatary Sikh priests at Golden Temple, Amritsar) who followed the Brahmo Samaj (but did not convert to Brahmo religion) without ceasing to be a Hindu -as per Privy Council decision of 1903 upholding the decision of High Court of the Punjab. Bikash Sen69.50.160.154 (talk) 10:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Rono, have added quite a bit. You will have to clean it up. I cannot create a user identity because wikipodia is banned, restricted in Riyadh. Bikash. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Bikash, good show !! At last we are getting somewhere. What we have do now pronto is establish "notability". Apparently this is very important for Wiki. Usually this means getting a quotation from some great author or Standard History / Encyclopedia (non-copyrighted) to say what a great thing the Brahmo religion is and how mankind has benefitted. We also have to check the article carefully for copyright infringement. I had objected on wikisource to Hem Chandra Sarkar's book, but these Wiki people use USA copyright law. Ronojit, 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronosen (talk • contribs)


 * Talking Heads unite. The article is slipping into "essay" mode. Focus and make it encyclopedic, then wikified. Have added Trust Deed. U-no-who. Yvantanguy (talk) 06:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear co-editors. Rono's latest embarrassment should be a stern warning. This article is to be gone over with a tooth comb. Trim out ruthlessly everything which is not verifiable and unsupported. I want to see tags everywhere. Slash everything to reflect NPOV. Keep opinions to the minimum. This is the only way to keep out foreign views and vandals - which Rono has just learnt the hard way. Also please thank Sniperz11. Yvantanguy (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

WPBiography template?
As this article is not on the subject of a single person, I don't believe the WPBiog. template should be on the talk page. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. gaidheal1 (talk♫contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Brahmo,not a separate religion, but society of Hindu reformers
When Raja Rammohan Ray established the Brahmo Sava(Later Brahmo Samaj), then they took the Veda's "Nirakar Tatwa" as a soul of the society. They believe in a Parambrahmo(Universal God), who is Unique. Later Maharshi Debendranath Tagore established Brahmo Samaj, and then they took the ancient rituals and thoughts(Mainly philosophy) of Vedas, and they called they worship Paramapita(Unique God). They also took the scripts of old Hindus, and they hadn't told any where that they are following any " separate religion ". They also believe in normal religious cultures, like Holi(Basanta Utsab). and they also strongly believe in the philosophy of Hindus and they follow the Veda like ancient Hindus. So,how they are separate from Hindus? They can't, and no where of their texts, they claim to be a different Religion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebuSinha (talk • contribs)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Brahmo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124073240/http://brahmo.org:80/brahmo-faq.html to http://www.brahmo.org/brahmo-faq.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229093419/http://brahmo.org:80/delhi-brahmo-samaj.html to http://brahmo.org/delhi-brahmo-samaj.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091104073944/http://www.brahmo.org:80/ to http://brahmo.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

End of first paragraph
The two sentences at the end of the first paragraph appear to be disjointed. The final sentence reads "Influenced the teachings of the Upanishads" as if that is a complete sentence. Vorbee (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2020 (UTC)