Talk:Brahmo Samaj/Archive 1

Baised and opinionated
"Its adherents have returned to traditional hinduism as they realised the hollowness of their new religion when compared to one thousands of years old."

That is absurd and judgmental.

jareer--203.81.213.80 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
I welcome all the new additions, but please note that to comply with Wikipedia content policies, material added to articles need to be supported by reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:CITE. As it stands now, most of the material added reads as an essay rather than an encyclopedi article, and may be construed as original research, unless citations are provided. ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Added references and made some revisions
There is something wrong technically. The full edit is not appearing on the article.

I had avoided the references earlier because of my apprehension about copyrights. As these are required, I have done so now and I hope that I am within the copyright limits. If not please advise and I shall have to clip the quotes even further but that would spoil the effect that is required.

P.K.Niyogi 05:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like the formatting problems are linked to the way in which you set up your references - you might want to go back and fix the formatting of your references. If you do that, the full edits should appear. --Classicfilms 06:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is fixed now. There were several instances where   had been used as a closing tag instead of  . Thanks for the improvements, P.K.Niyogi! &mdash; Elembis 08:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Elembis - Thanks for fixing up. I shall be careful in future. P.K.Niyogi 14:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to redo some parts of the article making it more encylopaedic from the essay type it is presently in, but am held back by the notices for reference. I request ≈ jossi ≈ to kindly review the notices, now that references have been inserted. -- P.K.Niyogi 03:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

One True God
This page is about Brahmo Samaj and the definition of Brahmo Samaj is as per History of the Bramo Samaj by Sivanath Sastri. The reference is clearly mentioned. There could be many views differing with that definition but on a Brahmo Samaj page, it is wrong to replace the Brahmo Samaj definition by some other definition. Moreover the replacement by the anonymous editor was a POV without any reference. -- P.K.Niyogi 06:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Leaders of Samaj/What is the Samaj?
This all seems very simplified. I haven't studied it that much, but my understanding is:

1828 Rammohun Roy founded Brahmo SABHA, followed on his death (1833) by Vidyavagish (NOT DEBENDRANATH)

Then Brahmo Samaj formed when this merged with Debendranath's Tattvabodhini Sabha (unsure on date)

Keshub did not take over, but split from the organisation to form the Brahmo Samaj of India (although this became bigger: the 'Adi' or 'Original' Brahmo declined)

Then the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj split off when Keshub's 14 year old daughter married a 16 year old son of old school Maharajas with polygamy and use of images in worship - this would have been illegal under the Native Marriages Bill that Keshub himself fought for if the Maharaja had been held under it: also they were annoyed by the increasing cult of Keshub as a kind of 'Great Man' prophet figure.

This is from an essay I wrote based on David Kopf The Brahmo Samaj and the Shaping of Modern India Julius Lipner Brahmabandam Upadhyay Manilel Parekh The Brahma Samaj (A short history) [this last is an insider view] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obvious Child (talk • contribs)


 * Do you have some published sources that we can cite for the above? ≈ jossi ≈ t &bull; @ 16:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

As in published on the Internet?

I tend to rely on books.... I could dig up some quotes from them if that helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obvious Child (talk • contribs) 17:44, May 14, 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is and how it works
Copied to Brahmo Samaj discussion page from Mr.Jossi's user page a topical message for this article. "Here's the deal. There is a growing group of people who are coming to the realization that Wikipedia is not always a force for good. In particular, when we record for posterity the minor details of people's lives, they have to live with a Wikipedia article coming up as the first hit on Google for the rest of their natural life. That's not necessarily fair, nor is it necessarily good for the long-term of the encyclopedia. I don't want to be involved with a project whose mission of human knowledge has been so twisted as to require us to document with meticulous detail for all eternity the lives of anyone who ever did something funny, stupid, criminal, minorly newsworthy or got converted into an Interwebs meme. That's not just me - it's a lot of other people, too. In these cases, Wikipedia has the potential to actively harm people by preventing people from ever forgetting something happened. We're prolonging 15 minutes of fame into a theoretically-permanent Wikipedia article. In my, and many others, opinions, that is not a good thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a permanent record of everything any person ever did that got in a newspaper. Either you get on this train of thought, or you're going to be left behind, because this is the direction the encyclopedia will go. End of story User:FCYTravis 14:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)'"
 * "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work. :http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/23/technology/23link.html?_r=1&ex=13350&oref=slogin
 * I reproduce here a statement by Slrubenstein that I consider to be a succinct and brilliant explanation of what this project is about, and the tension between policy, content development, and collaboration:
 * "Wikipedia policies have never functioned to assure the quality of the information included in articles — it is our being a wiki community, in which everyone in the world (i.e. people having a wide range of knowledge) can add to the encyclopedia, and everyone in the world (including many people with good judgment) can delete things, that is meant to produce a quality encyclopedia ... this is the whole gamble of the project, the dare to be wiki and have faith that the result will be quality content, that distinguishes us. Policies have never and in my mind should never police quality. On the contrary, they provide the framework for a wiki community to function. This is why the core policy is NPOV: a large heterogeneous community can work together because none of us will use Wikipedia to forward his or her own views, and because people with contradictory views will not paralyze an argument over who is right (who knows the truth, the objective reality). NPOV does this by insisting that we provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views. These views must not be our own ... thus giving rise to our No Original Research policy. Since they must not be our own, they (including views that are synthetic!) must be attributable to some source ... thus giving birth to our Verifiability policy. Many people reasonably see NOR and V as two sides of the same coin: do not do x, instead do y. The distinction between attribute and attributable is important for the same reason that what distinguishes us is the wiki nature of the project. Each article is a product of the community, not a single author — because we know that multiple strengths will outweigh multiple weaknesses. I add what I know to an article but of course it is not everything; someone else adds more. I add one view, someone else adds another view. Similarly, I add an attributable claim, someone else adds the attribution — this is the very nature of collaboration which is at the heart of Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"
 * This is also a very pertinent comment:
 * "Wikipedia policies have never functioned to assure the quality of the information included in articles — it is our being a wiki community, in which everyone in the world (i.e. people having a wide range of knowledge) can add to the encyclopedia, and everyone in the world (including many people with good judgment) can delete things, that is meant to produce a quality encyclopedia ... this is the whole gamble of the project, the dare to be wiki and have faith that the result will be quality content, that distinguishes us. Policies have never and in my mind should never police quality. On the contrary, they provide the framework for a wiki community to function. This is why the core policy is NPOV: a large heterogeneous community can work together because none of us will use Wikipedia to forward his or her own views, and because people with contradictory views will not paralyze an argument over who is right (who knows the truth, the objective reality). NPOV does this by insisting that we provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views. These views must not be our own ... thus giving rise to our No Original Research policy. Since they must not be our own, they (including views that are synthetic!) must be attributable to some source ... thus giving birth to our Verifiability policy. Many people reasonably see NOR and V as two sides of the same coin: do not do x, instead do y. The distinction between attribute and attributable is important for the same reason that what distinguishes us is the wiki nature of the project. Each article is a product of the community, not a single author — because we know that multiple strengths will outweigh multiple weaknesses. I add what I know to an article but of course it is not everything; someone else adds more. I add one view, someone else adds another view. Similarly, I add an attributable claim, someone else adds the attribution — this is the very nature of collaboration which is at the heart of Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"
 * This is also a very pertinent comment:
 * This is also a very pertinent comment:

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Membership numbers
Can we include an estimate of the number of members? I Can't find any info on that anywhere. Prater 10:46, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We are trying to build a email discussion forum (brahmoconference@yahoogroups.com )where we shall come to know about list of Brahmos. It is an initiative taken in All India Brahmo Conference 2007 held in Bangalore. Pl. send a mail to debanjan.ray@siemens.com and debanjanray2003@yahoo.co.in the- Debanjan Ray, Bangalore  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debanjanray2003 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Debendranath was the father of Rabindranath and leader of Brahmo Samaj, not Dwarakanath. Secondly, I am not sure if atleast The Adi Brahmo Samaj rejected the vedas, the whole ideology was based on Upanishads, which are often consedered parts of Vedas. --ppm 7 July 2005 18:33 (UTC)

Raja Ram Mohan Roy was one of the first Indians to visit Europe? what are you guys smoking? --Someones life 01:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Aims of Movement
I have deleted the alleged "Aims of the Movement" section in its entireity. It is exclusively from Navabihan Samaj propoganda sources and reads like an eulogy to Keshab Chunder Sen and his Samajes' concept of "Universalism". It is out of place in an encyclopedia. This is not to say that the Brahmo Samaj does and/or did not have aims - it does - but not these ones.Landirenzo (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

International USA/GBR/IN/BD "Copyright of image" question
Update of the discussion at Village Pump (Policy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29 concerning Mr. Keshub Chunder Sen's photographic image. This is the current status - the discussion at Village Pump is getting somwhat intense, inconclusive and stands reduced to "bring forth an actual copyright holder" to challenge this image.

Dear Everyone. This is not only a copyright issue. There are at least 50 images of the man in this controversy available for anyone to see. His artworks are hanging in museums all over India and perhaps Bangladesh too. The Government of India has issued document (a postage stamp in his memory along with a booklet on his life and work) which rebut this photograph absolutely. For unknown reasons this particular image (which hardly resembles the man - who is a notable individual worthy of being included in encyclopedia) is the one which repeatedly shows up in internet search - a classic case of Gresham's Law where a bad image drives out all the good ones. We (Brahmos) are deeply concerned with not only the true representation of the man but also Wikipedia's encyclopedic reputation. We have oft stated that we are not vandals, and what we post here is NOT a legal threat or a thinly veiled or disguised "threat" - you misunderstand us. Accordingly the Uploader of the image (who started this thread) is as concerned as us. We do not attribute any motives to him for uploading this image, at the time he did his best in good faith. He has properly cited *all* the appropriate tags to be complied with for Uploading an image to W/M - namely i) The general Berne Convention Public domain tag - PD-OLD, ii) The specific Public Domain Tag for India PD-IN iii) The specific Public domain tag for Bangladesh PD-BD. These tags were cited by him prior to this controversy. He is unable to fulfill / comply the requirements of PD-IN. As to your other point about "in absence of copyright holder" the family / descendant of the man is also in this debate and as concerned about getting to the bottom of the matter. I summarise the issues (for us) below:-


 * A) Is the impugned image a faithful mechanical reproduction of the original fixation?

So we need to see where they obtained this image from (The Asiatic Society after all is an old Institution - the first ever Indians admitted in 1829 to it were also Brahmos - Dwarkanath Tagore and Prassano Coomar Tagore). With so many images of Keshub Sen available to the Asiatic Society why was this particular one (which differs from all others) selected by BP for publication? Is it coincidence or something else (like Internet mechanics) whereby only this image is being circulated and Gresham's law is being proved. Thanks everyone for participating here, can we trouble you to guide us again? 122.163.151.152 (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * B) The first publication of this image cited is in the Banglapedia a print encyclopedia of Bangladesh which encyclopedia was first published in 2003 by the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh (as per Wikipedia). Incidentally the Banglapedia project started as a "History of Bangladesh" after BD's Liberation in 1971. It is in it's first edition and there are already calls for corrections / bias and a second edn. is promised soon.

recent Brahmo Samaj edits
Ragib, your caution is much appreciated. It is nowhere near being (yet) a revert / edit "war", nor is there a content "dispute". There is adequate communication between recent editors at Brahmo Samaj via the edit summaries - not (yet) requiring resort to discussion pages. In the course of providing appropriate (and acceptable) citations, there are bound to be differences between editors in the "manner" and "style" of presentation of content in the article. The Talk pages and dispute redressal forums are always available if required. BTW the previous issue on your talk page, ie. of clone "Banglapedia" sites was not known to me, and I shall henceforth use the .org site if the same content is available there. I am also copying this to Brahmo Samaj Talk. Landirenzo (talk) 06:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC). Landirenzo (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do see a lot of edits/reverts in the last few days. While 3 reverts are tolerated, it does not mean one gets to do 3 reverts on a daily basis. When people are engaged in daily reverts, it indicates a failure to communicate the issue via discussion. I urge you and others who are engaged on daily reverts, to discuss and resolve your issues here in the talk page, rather than reverting daily. Otherwise, as an uninvolved admin, I'd have to protect this article until disagreements are resolved. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Ragib. Confirming that there is no editorial war (yet !!). Is "banglapedia.net" different from "banglapedia.org"? Both these websites have identical looking homepage. In addition there is "banglapedia.search.com.bd", "banglapedia.info", "boi-mela.com" and many clone sites. From Ragib's discussion page, other Wikipodians are also found confounded by these many cloned sites of Banglapedia. On viewing the Wikipodia entry for Banglapedia we find all these sites and also that the editorial board is representaive of modern Bangladesh, and so this valuable resource for all Bengalis is not sufficiently encyclopediac as primary reference but needs independent confirmation on controversial aspects of Brahmo events occurring outside Bangladesh. This is just my opinion. Please do not protect this article. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 07:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The recent edits of today and yesterday show that it may be possible to reach a degree of consensus for this article so that it is balanced ad encyclopedic. I admit that I was a sceptic if it could be done without warring, reverts or vandalism. Sniperz11 reassured me that it could be done and that even more controversial pages have been salvaged. While still opposed to merger of this page with other pages (which deal with different aspects of Brahmoism), there is no reason to presume that cooperative (but not collusive) edits with suitable communication between editors will not work here. Communication could be at the "summary" level or at this article Discussion page level - whichever uses WP resource least. As it is the Talk Page size has tripled in the past 10 days - making discussion sluggish. What "uninvolved admins" are viewing as "warring" is a welcome and healthy cyber meeting of Brahmo(?) intellects operating (thus far) in spirit of 1830 Trust Deed and in good faith. Yvantanguy (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest that we stop editing the History and Time Line section for a few days - except to add citations and minor edits. This will give other users a chance to evaluate / review it better. Please resist the temptation to intervene "against" Wiki editors who are not Brahmos. Yvantanguy (talk) 10:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

CONTENT DISPUTE: History and Timeline (Foundation of Samaj)
revised recent "Foundation of Samaj" edits by 'Yvantanguy'. Reason - Accuracy, Original Research, Disputed, unencyclopedic etc. Stick to the history. Cite reliable sources. This is "encyclopedia" not "history text". Landirenzo (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your version, could still be improved. "motley" !!! Yvantanguy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The sub-section header has been altered. Therefore I am removing the dispute tag. In the event of vandalism, the page will be blocked. Landirenzo (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

CONTENT DISPUTE: Doctrine
revised recent "Doctrine" edit by 'Yvantanguy'. Reason - surmised vandalism, POV, dubious information, NOR policy Landirenzo (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why me? Did I have anything to do with "Doctrine"? Why do you assume it was me? "surmised vandalism" ???? Check out the IP's of all the vandals involved and nix them.!!!! Yvantanguy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is neat, having different sections for different disputes, thank you whoever has done this. Why is there no Table of Contents here as on other disussion pages? One of my edits was reverted by Landirenzo. Here is what he reverted. Kindly inform why it is not acceptable. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "The fundamental principles of the Brahmo Samaj, founded by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in 1828 are:
 * 1. There is only one God, who is the creator, and the saviour of this world. He is spirit, infinite in power, wisdom, love, justice and holiness, omnipresent, eternal and blissful.
 * 2. The human soul is immortal and capable of infinite progress, and is responsible to God for its doings.
 * 3. Man's happiness in this and the next world consists in worshipping God in spirit and in truth.
 * 4. Loving God, holding communion with Him, and carrying out His will in all the concerns of life, constitute true worship.
 * 5. No created object is to be worshipped as God, and God alone is to be considered as infallible.
 * To this, Raja Ram Mohan Roy added "The true way of serving God is to do good to man." Since no one person is considered to be infallible, the Brahmos hold all the great religious leaders of the world in respect, and believe that truth is to be gleaned from all the scriptures of the world. To that extent, the Brahmo religion is truly eclectic. Universalist in nature, it is "dogmatically undogmatic"." (Source: "Beliefs of the Brahmo Samaj, Fundamental Principles of the Brahmo Religion and Universalism" - chanda.freeserve DOT co.uk/beliefso.htm)" 69.50.160.154 (talk) 11:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you want the short answer or the long. In short, your citation is from a POV source and unreliable. The author of these principles is stated to be a Minister for 30 years with the Unitarian Church. The principles as described are inconsistent with NOR policy. The Brahmo Samaj was not founded in 1828 by R.M.Roy. These are not Ram Mohan Roy's principles at all but derived in part from D.N.Tagore's principles and covenant of circa 1849/50 and K.C.Sen's Christianity. How Roy could have added to these after his death in 1833 is not clear. Do you still require the long answer involving Unitarian Universalism. Landirenzo (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Landirenzo. These statements of Dr.Kalyansri Dasgupta are published by Sammilan Samaj Kolkatta too. When the Samaj itself is publishing these principles, why should we rely on books and definitions by outsiders? 69.50.160.154 (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So now you want the long answer!
 * "Wikipedia policies have never functioned to assure the quality of the information included in articles — it is our being a wiki community, in which everyone in the world (i.e. people having a wide range of knowledge) can add to the encyclopedia, and everyone in the world (including many people with good judgment) can delete things, that is meant to produce a quality encyclopedia ... this is the whole gamble of the project, the dare to be wiki and have faith that the result will be quality content, that distinguishes us. Policies have never and in my mind should never police quality. On the contrary, they provide the framework for a wiki community to function. This is why the core policy is NPOV: a large heterogeneous community can work together because none of us will use Wikipedia to forward his or her own views, and because people with contradictory views will not paralyze an argument over who is right (who knows the truth, the objective reality). NPOV does this by insisting that we provide an account not of the truth or objective facts but of diverse views. These views must not be our own ... thus giving rise to our No Original Research policy. Since they must not be our own, they (including views that are synthetic!) must be attributable to some source ... thus giving birth to our Verifiability policy. Many people reasonably see NOR and V as two sides of the same coin: do not do x, instead do y. The distinction between attribute and attributable is important for the same reason that what distinguishes us is the wiki nature of the project. Each article is a product of the community, not a single author — because we know that multiple strengths will outweigh multiple weaknesses. I add what I know to an article but of course it is not everything; someone else adds more. I add one view, someone else adds another view. Similarly, I add an attributable claim, someone else adds the attribution — this is the very nature of collaboration which is at the heart of Wikipedia. Slrubenstein 13:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)" reproduced again for your benefit by Landirenzo (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Mr. Landirenzo. I also seek your views on the following doctrine of Brahmoism which was added by 91.84.248.29 on 1-April,2008.
 * Essentials of Brahmoism:
 * * Belief in Monotheism(One and only One God)
 * * Rejection of Idol Worship, Ceremonies, Rituals and of Divinity Status to Man
 * * Rationalist Approach to Religion
 * * Removing Dogmatism. Blind faith and Superstition
 * * Emphasis on Man's Direct Communion with God through Upasana (Divine Service) and Prarthana (Prayer) ;
 * * Rejection of Image and Guru
 * * No Recognition to any scripture or Holy Book as Supreme and Infallible
 * * Believes God resides within Man's heart (So opposes ceremonies and rituals): Self realisation and Self purification
 * * Importance to Man irrespective of caste, Creed, Colour, Race Religion
 * * Rejects Caste system and all Stigmas of 'Contamination' 'Untouchability'
 * * Universalistic Attitude : Faith in Basic Unity of Religions; Respect for all Religions and their Scriptures as all of them contain Basic Truths
 * * Opposes all sorts of Contempt, Hatred Hostility towards other Religions
 * * Belief in Immortality of Soul idea of Salvation
 * * Different Notion of Heaven and Hell
 * * Rejects Fatalism and Escapism; Rejection of Asceticism, Mendicancy or Celibacy as a means to Spiritualism;
 * * Belief in Happy Family Life as means to Spiritual Bliss.
 * (BRAHMOISM - What It Stands for and Its Present Day Relevance, by Prof. (Dr.) Sumanta Niyogi, Patna)
 * Origin "picasaweb"
 * subfolder "/debanjanray2003/"
 * file "BrahmoismSumantaNiyogi02"
 * Many thanks. Bikash Sen. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Bikash Sen. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My reply is identical to that for your previous edit, NPOV,  No Original Research, Verifiability. In addition the IP address of the editor is that of a known vandal. Landirenzo (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually on further (deep) reconsideration, I alter my revert for this section on 'Doctrine', since that 1965 Gazetteer of India version fulfills the brief of NPOV, No Original Research, Verifiability best. Landirenzo (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Bipin Chandra Pal
There was a quote of Bipin Chandra Pal on this page, as follows:
 * "It is considered by many philosophers and thinkers that Raja Rammohun Roy had given us a philosophy of a universal religion. But philosophy was not religion. It is only when philosophy becomes organised in ethical exercises and disciplines and spiritual sacraments that it becomes a religion. Debendranath gave us a national religion, on the foundations of Rammohun’s philosophy of universal religion. To Keshab, however, was left the work of organising Rammohan Roy’s philosophy into a real universal religion through new rituals, liturgies, sacraments and disciplines, wherein were sought to be brought together not only the theories and doctrines of the different world religions but also their outer vehicles and formularies to the extent that these were real vehicles of their religious or spiritual life, divested, however, through a process of spiritual sifting, of their imperfections and errors and superstitions."

Source: The Story of Bengal’s New Era: Brahmo Samaj and Brahmananda Keshab Chunder by Bipin Chandra Pal, published in Bangabani, 1922. Reprinted in Brahmananda Keshab Chunder Sen “Testimonies in Memoriam”, compiled by G. C. Banerjee, Allahabad, 1934, Bengali section p 33.

This along with a quote of Chittaranajan Das was deleted by Landirenzo with the flowing comments on the talk page.


 * I have deleted the alleged "Aims of the Movement" section in its entireity. It is exclusively from Navabidhan Samaj propaganda sources and reads like an eulogy to Keshab Chunder Sen and his Samaj's concept of "Universalism". It is out of place in an encyclopedia. This is not to say that the Brahmo Samaj does and/or did not have aims - it does - but not these ones

I was surprised to find the quote of Bipin Chandra Pal, deleted only a few days back, return back to the page in a distorted manner as follows:


 * It is considered by many philosophers & thinkers that Raja Rammohan Roy had given us a philosophy of universal religion. But philosophy was not religion. It is only when philosophy becomes organised in ethical exercises and disciplines and spiritual sacraments that it becomes a religion. Debendranath gave us a national religion, on the foundations of Rammohun’s philosophy of universal religion.

Source: Brahmo Samaj.org

This is distortion of history, to say the least. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Jayanta1952, Your point is well taken. The quotation was not added back by Landirenzo but by some unlogged user. The quotation as originally placed in this article was without foundation / citation (a common problem with this article Brahmo Samaj). Now that you have quoted the source for this, I would tend to agree with Mr.Landirenzo's observation that it is from "Navabidhan sources" and hence has POV issues - but this is for you to resolve with him. Accordingly I am reverting the recent edit of unlogged user who added this comment back in "distorted" form. All of us may resolve this issue through discussion and "CONTENT DISPUTE" talks etc. and not by indulging in revert wars. Kindly also see my message in Talk:Brahmo to you. Best wishes. Yvantanguy (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While deleting that "Aims of the Movement" section, I was acutely aware that the quotation of B.C.Pal was from the 1934 :"In Memoriam", hence the "eulogy" remark. My Navabidhan remark was due to another editor P.K.Niyogi's penchant for inserting and reverting quotations here which are better suited for Wikiquote. I must again restate some core policies, NPOV, No Original Research, Verifiability also with a continuous dialog being maintained between editors wherever there is controversy. Landirenzo (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your explanations are funny and irrelevent. The basic question of distortion of history by your group remains proved. I wish you had retained the quote as a proof of your misdeeds. You removed the quotes of Bipin Chandra Pal and Chittaranjan Das because your group is anti-Keshab Sen and his achievements seem to be a red rag before the bull, for you people. I am unable to understand how Chittaranjan Das could be a vehicle of Navabidhani propaganda. Wasn't he nephew of Durga Mohan Das, one of the founders of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj? You can spew as much venom on any one you dislike. Afterall, all your actions are a result of the hatred in your hearts but you really cannot achieve anything much with such hatred. I wonder why the Administrators are not intervening and allowing all this non-sense on Wikipedia? - Jayanta1952 (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am the editor “with penchant for inserting and reverting quotations” Yes, the charge is accepted and I have added hundreds of quotations in Wikipedia. I have been here long enough and need not be taught on the subject. The Narlikar quote was also inserted by me. Now I find that instead of that being similarly deleted it adorns the Raja’s photograph. I have never tried to distort a quote.


 * I would like to clarify things a little. I have the habit of monitoring the pages that I have previously worked on. Deletions are a regular feature in Wikipedia and much of it is thoughtless deletion by anonymous editors. I restore what I think is wrongly deleted or deleted without an explanation. When checking the Brahmo Samaj page I noticed the deletions of quotes now being discussed. As per regular habit, I restored them. Later I found them deleted again with a note on talk page. Thereafter, I stopped further restoration on this page because I found there was an editor with a strong point-of-view (right or wrong) and an explanation was there. I am not used to the sectarian thinking of the group of people now editing these pages, nor would I like to be party to the edit wars now taking place. Only for information of the group, I would like to point out that I have worked on numerous Brahmo biographies, including those of Sivanath Sastri, Sib Chandra Deb, Durga Mohan Das, Umesh Chandra Dutta, Dwarkanath Ganguly, Kadambini Ganguly, Sarala Roy, and Abala Bose – all Sadharan Brahmo Samaj stalwarts (more details on my user page). I have taken some of these biographies on to DYK (Did you know) column on Main Page. With appreciation and encouragement from fellow Wikipedians, I had drifted to other topics and subjects. Carry on guys, but please don’t drag me into this anymore. It will take you many hours of work before you exceed what I have added on Brahmo Samaj. If you do good work on Wikipedia you are bound to be appreciated. Regards to all - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Niyogi, as the editor who deleted the entire section 'Aims of the Movement' not just some 'quotes', please allow me to clarify my 'strong POV' as an editor. I am concerned with the Five pillars and everything consequent to it. I do not add material to this page. I only delete or adjust matter which does not conform substantially to the 5 pillars. My edit actions are as liable to peer review on the discussion page for this article and consequent action by bureaucracy as any other editor. Landirenzo (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Topical archive sub-pages created using modified Cut and Paste method
see Help:Archiving a talk page
 * /Merger and Copyright issues - This archive contains voluminous old discussion more than 14 days old on article Merger or Copyright or Media issues.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Landirenzo (talk • contribs) 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)