Talk:Dhakeshwari Temple

- An image of the entrance would be valuable addition.-Arman Aziz 15:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ✅

Untitled
"The bulk of the confiscated land has been allocated to property developers for commercial property development."

The above statement is simply wrong. My dorm was just beside the temple, and there are no property developers out there. While it is true that the temple area looks cramped, the encroached/confiscated land has not been used to create apartments and so on. Rather, I saw small stores springing up around it. So, the "bulk of the land going to property developers" is false (though at the same time, the encroachment comment is perhaps true.) --Ragib 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you are so confident, why shouldnt we remove this line.nids(&#9794;) 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Done. --Ragib 17:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This whole article needs citations.(Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)).

Image clarification
I was a bit confused as I had previously seen various types of photos representing the temple. This got clear once I visited the temple premises myself. The image with the Goddess Durga now shown in the page is actually from the "Mahanagar Puja Mandap", which is a permanent puja stage outside the main temple compound, but within the boundary of the temple area. There are four Shiva temples (the 4 identical looking red and saffron structures). The main temple is to the east of these Shiva temples, and contains the goddess statue. I'm uploading images which will clarify this. Thanks. --Ragib 04:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The origin of the Dhakeshwari temple is obscure. According to popular legend, the original temple was built in 12th century by Ballal Sen, a king of the Sena dynasty, and the name of the city was coined after this temple but has its origins during the Gupta when ruled most of Bengal; East India

I am having a lot of trouble understanding the last part of this sentence. Can someone reword this please? --SameerKhan 05:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think something was chopped off from the last part, making it incomprehensible. --Ragib 05:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)