Talk:Keshub Chandra Sen

Wikisource & Wikiquotes

I have added Wikisource and Wikiquotes. Both are at the initial stage and I intend to do some more work on that over a period of time. Others interested in this topic may please put in their might.

-- P.K.Niyogi 04:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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 18:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Move to Keshab Chandra Sen

If there are no objections, I would like to move this page to Keshab Chandra Sen. The Keshub Chunder Sen spelling was common in British days; it ‘smells' of British times, somehow. Keshab Chandra Sen is closer to the Bangla, and the common way to spell the name today. Google comes out 3,260 vs 4,140. Comments please. Devadaru (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling of the name is as he himself used. I think it should remain as it is. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The name with this spelling also has links outside Wikipedia (Wikiquote etc.). A move disturbs all that. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you make some good points against my proposal. I guess it still seems old-fashioned to me. I have become accustomed to the spelling found in the Ramakrishna Mission literature. And a move would have a redirect. But considering your reservations, I will hold off making any changes. Anyone else have an opinion on this? Devadaru (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a standard practice to use the spelling of a name as used by the person himself. This page has been moved from the spelling proposed to the present one with a redirect available. I am happy that Devadaru sees the point - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

We can't change the way a person wrote his name, so if the subject wrote his name as "Keshub Chunder" , we have to stick to that. --Ragib (talk) 07:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fake Image deletion

Dear Mr Rageeb, you know quite well that this is not Keshab Sen's true image, but a forgery. You also know quite well that previously also you cannot say where the origin of this doctored and manipulated image is from and where Banglapedia pirate it from. All this has been repeatly discuss on Talk:Brahmo_Samaj, at Village Pump, at Copyright issues page. If you are so concern with this image and WP:RS why not you compare your upolded forgery with so many authentic image of Keshab Sen all over Internet. 195.178.107.95 (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, once again, I never said or implied that the image is fake. The image is from Banglapedia, and if you want, you can consult it to learn the sources. As far as I'm concerned, the image's source have been provided (Banglapedia bio). Please stop blanking the image. You have also broken 3RR by reverting via your numerous IPs. A look at WP:NPA would also help here. --Ragib (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

As the uploader why would you admit it to be fake? Many people say the image is fake, manipulated, doctored. As a fake image which was published by Banglapedia very recently it is still in copyright, you could not establish prior publication. The dubious sources and quality of Banglapedia as a primary source has been admitted by Banglapedia themselves and it has a strong Bangladesh POV and is not reliable for West Bengal Hindu subjects like Sen. The true image of Sen has been published by India Government on Postage Stamp. Why do you not upload that image instead? Do you deny that Sen was "swarthy" and "nut brown" in real life and not a White Indian like in this forge and doctored painting. It is your imagination that 3R Rule is violate since you have violate it and not I.195.178.107.95 (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, you are not making much sense. Banglapedia is a product of the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh, an academic institution, and has been widely acclaimed. Your claim of "bias" is patently ridiculous. The insinuation regarding religion is even worse ... and shows your personal opinion. "Many people says its fake" ... who and where? Show any references? Or should I assume *you* and your other anon IP (69.197.132.98 ) from England think so? So, please provide any references for the claims you make above, or stop your ridiculous comments about the photo or about Banglapedia. I can't help that you have a religious POV and want to draw imaginary lines here. --Ragib (talk) 17:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

My dear Ragib. I have just been reviewing the previous debate on this controversial image. This is a copyright issue primarily, the forgery aspect is secondary. As the uploader of this image to Wiki you have provided the wrong copyright tags so that this image could be uploaded. Every Public Domain tag you have given is inapplicable. The first publication of this image you could show was from the first edition of Banglapedia (from where you digitised it), which is not even 10 years back. Since it is a now copyright issue, until such time as you can demonstrate "publication" of this image more than 60 (or 70) years back, this image must be deleted to comply with Wiki policy. Altenatively, you can cite the creator of this image and claim "fair use". Every other claim you make has already been convincingly disposed of in Village Pump and Media Copyright Questions when this controversy erupted on another article in March/April 2008. The Image is a blatant forgery easily discernible to an ordinary person when the image is compared to the postage stamp (published by Government of India) referred and to other portraits of Keshab Chunder which can be viewed on internet. You should properly explain why you persist with promoting this dubious image from a dubious and POV "encyclopedia" like Banglapedia and why you cannot even state with certainty if this image is a portrait or a photograph and when it was "fixed" (in all senses). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/April#Question_on_controversial_image

Who is Jaysweet, why is he relevant, and where can we read your discussion with him, or was it Off-wiki?. Finally, concerning your innuendo, is there a Wikiban on using IP addresses or having users from England. 69.197.132.98 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Vandals at Work

This page is being vandalised in order to spread the message of a section of the Brahmo Samaj. First, Rono Sen deleted both the biography and photograph of Kehub Chunder Sen. Thereafter he put up a distorted biography of Keshub Chunder Sen. An anonymous editor has attempted to rectify some of it. When an attempt was made to restore the photograph, the dummies of Rono Sen have been actively deleting it under some pretext or other. They have been abusing and threatening right thinking Wikipedians and tiring them off. They used the same tactics when propagating their distorted philosophy on the Brahmo Samaj and some of the related pages and put up all rubbish. After vandalising the Brahmo Samaj pages they have turned to vandalise the biographies such as those of Keshub Chunder Sen and Sabarna Roy Choudhury. On all these pages, their attempt is to delete or eliminate all other points of view and force their own. The image of Keshub Chunder Sen, uploaded here is in use in various publications of the Navabidhan Samaj. It is widely considered a true representation of the person. Rono Sen is associated with the IT industry and as such has access to large numbers of computers. Thus he is able to confuse others with numerous acronyms and anonymous edits. I suggest that this page be reverted to what it was before Rono Sen’s edit and then locked. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 13:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting a bit too much these days. What I don't understand is what is wrong with the 1st photograph? It is the commonest photograph of Sen and it is in public domain as he died more than 60 years back. Also, why are some people trying to degrade Sabarna Roy Choudhury page? Childish act, really. --GDibyendu (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

May be semi-protection will help anon IP vandalism. --Ragib (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GDibyendu, Ragib, and others - the first photo is not only acceptable, but clearly a photo of Keshub Chunder Sen that has been widely used to portray him. Both photos add to the article, and both should remain. Semi-protection would help with the vandalism. ~ priyanath talk 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Priyanath, This is a serious issue, but unfortunately a gang of editors is trivialising it. The image uploaded by Ragib is a "calendar art" portrait based on a painting hanging in a well known museum in India. The fact that this dubious portrait is "calendar art" is admitted by Ragib in previous discussion. In the authentic portrait Mr.Sen is very "brown". However, Ragib's version has blancoed (whitened) Mr.Sen - and is hence not reliable or a "fair depiction" (well actually it is a "fair" depiction, but in an un-RS way). All the Historical literature describes Mr.Sen as "swarthy", "nut brown" etc. The acceptable WP:RS Postage Stamp of Mr.Sen (based on the museum portrait) issued by India Government faithfully depicts Sen as "brown". I believe similar disputes regularly occur in Christian wiki articles over whether Jesus Christ was a white or brown or black etc. I did not discuss this previously and neither was the "photo" accepted (please see the archived discussion). Am CC'ing this to the Talk of concerned article also, since edit warring is in progress.69.197.132.98 (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most people understand that ancient b&w photos don't show shades of brown, and therefore will not assume that his skin was white. If indeed it is calendar art, it's still apparently a widely used representation. I see two steps that might produce a compromise, which should be well-discussed here first. 1. Since the second photo is probably more accurate, swap the position of the two photos, since the more accurate would arguably be more encyclopedic. 2. If the first photo is calendar art, then simply change the caption to state 'Artist's rendering of...' or 'Retouched photo of....'. And please stop reverting. From your talk page, it appears that you are just one more step from being blocked. ~ priyanath talk 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw suggestion. Page is just fine as it is, and both photos are legit and appropriately placed. ~ priyanath talk 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For clarification, I have NOT claimed or "admitted" that this is calendar art. So, the anon is misleading in his statement above. All I mentioned was that "it seems to be coming from the collections of the India office of British Library. The publication is from "Calcutta Art Studios" circa 1890 [3]. It seems that the same studio published a large number of photographs of prominent people of the era." I don't see any problem with the color of the hundred year old image. --Ragib (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading the comment by anon above, I find it extremely ridiculous. You can refer to other b/w photos from 19th century, and those also don't differentiate much between a person with a brown complexion and one with a lighter complexion. In other words, there isn't any difference in grayscale or b/w photos in terms of skin colors of the subject. If that's the only argument against the photo, then indeed this continuous blanking is simply vandalism. --Ragib (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To prevent continued vandalism from anon-IP addresses, I have semi-protected the article. Editors are welcome to discuss the article and/or the photos in the talk page and reach a consensus. --Ragib (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous.

Firstly user:Ragib should temper his particpation in this discussion, since he is the uploader. He has gone to extraordinarily great lengths to defend this image. As an "involved admin" he has breached his duty by blocking this page to protect his uploaded image.

Secondly, User:Shiben_Dutta is a sock puppet for Nav Bidhani members of "Brahmo Conference" Yahoo group. Kindly see this URL: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/message/630 and a few days later opens this single purpose account. I suspect he was previously under the user name of Jayanta1952 also.

Thirdly, Shiben Dutta has lied when he says that my cousin Ronojit Sen (RonoSen) deleted Keshab's image from this page (I am Bikash Sen). This is easily verifiable from the article history. I am emailing RonoSen (who is disgusted with the clique of "super pseudo editors" at Wikipodia who dominate infrequent - but specialist - contributors) and has stopped contributing) about his defamation here.

Fourthly, my own participation in the "image controversy" discussion was not very extensive, but I followed it at the time. Ragib could not even establish if this was a "photo" or a "portrait" (ie. painting). As of now both the images on his page are "paintings" and not "photographs".

This is quite clearly a dispute / edit war between 2 factions of Brahmo Samaj, if super editors take sides it is not good. Have 5 Pillars of Wiki been discarded?

There is no dispute (yet) about User:Priyanath's image since he has clearly cited the date, publication etc. (I can also tell you who painted his image). Let Ragib either state unequivocally his image's source or else deny that the full COLOUR original of his image is hanging in an INDIAN museum.

Ragib's statement is false that Calcutta Art Studios is the source of his image or that Calcutta Art Studios was into "photography" then. It specialised in cheap calendar art and reproduction of "distorted" religious images like the present one. quote for Ragib "PS. Can you verify that the "Calcutta Art Studio" is a "photographic" studio, because from BL it looks to be a "calendar art studio" as in paintings and portraits of gods and goddesses (like the impugned image) Yvantanguy (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)" Ragib could not reply.

Let Priyanath's image stand till such time as User:Ragib can defend his image and provide a verifiable PD source for it. Worklikeadog (talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, semi-protecting an article to prevent drive by anon vandals is not any "use of admin powers". It is standard practice to protect articles in such cases from anon IP vandals. In the last 24 hours, you and your anon IPs have broken 3RR multiple times despite a consensus by other editors to preserve status quo. Once again, users are free to edit the page, but NOT anon ips and throwaway single purpose user IDs like Worklikeadog (talk · contribs) created solely to evade 3RR violations.

Secondly, if the user is suspected as a sockpuppet of another user, please make a request for checkuser.

Fourthly, I have mentioned all along that this is a photograph as used in many places (including various websites and Banglapedia). If you have any proof to the contrary, please provide that. You might also try *actually reading* my comments : it seems to be coming from the collections of the India office of British Library. The publication is from "Calcutta Art Studios" circa 1890 [3]. It seems that the same studio published a large number of photographs of prominent people of the era.. I did not state that the image IS taken from the calendar or Calcutta Art Studio, I merely pondered that it is a possibility which may or may not be correct.

You are also applying circular logic here ... at one point you claim this is a photo from an album and therefore not in PD now, and the next point you claim this is a portrait. Which one is it? I'd love to see your proof that this is "from an Indian museum". --Ragib (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Ragib. The image was not deleted by myself from this article. It is a blatant lie by whoever is saying so to libel me. Actually I strongly defended this article from vandalism and provide good cites. This is not the first time this image has been challenged. When you could not prove it at Talk:Brahmo Samaj, the discussion was taken - at your request - to Village Pump where also you could not justify this image. Then User Yvantanguy and You took it Media Copy Right questions. At that point User Sarcasticidealist said you were wrong - in unambiguous wording. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions/Archive/2008/April#Image_from_National_Geographic.2C_Found_on_Web

"Unfortunately, as I understand it the law is very clear on this point. In jurisdictions where copyright is measured from the date of publication, a date of publication has to be established proximately enough to know whether or not the copyright is lapsed. If the earliest date of publication we're aware of for this photo is 2003, then we can't consider it in the public domain in jurisdictions where the relevant lapse is date of publication + 60. For what constitutes publication, see Wikipedia:PD#Publication. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)"

Whereupon YOU concocted this absurd story about British Library and concocted a date of 1890. Then YOU waffled about whether it is a painting or a photo. Since YOU are uploader, YOU tell us. The fact of the matter is that you pirated this image from Bangalpedia which itself was published in 2003. It is incumbent on YOU to inform us (like Priyanath has) on the following lines:-

a) Is it Photo or painting? b) If photo when was it first "published"? c) If painting who painted it - what is its "provenance"?

If YOU cannot do this, please be a good sport and remove this image, especially when there are so many good ones of Keshub Sen available (like the 5 in the files section of "Brahmoconference Yahoo group".) Ronosen (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Ronosen, time to cool down, and stop making personal attacks. ~ priyanath talk 22:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

First, it is not clear who we are dealing with here. One point, we see anon IPs replying to comments, the next moment Bikash sen/Rono Sen comes up to reply to comments directed at the anons. I somehow think that there is actually a single person we are dealing with here.

Second, I have reported Ronosen (talk · contribs)'s posting of my personal information here at the ANB.

Third, I have always maintained that this is a photo. I have given a source: Banglapedia. They (ASB) maintain that it is an old photograph (taken before subject's death) of the subject. For a person who died in 1880s, there is no law that would make the image remain under copyright. I have mentioned my sources accurately in the image page, and have repeated this multiple times.

Finally, we don't have to "look into" the photos section of any yahoo group. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick update; following a checkuser, User:Ronosen has been found to be using open proxies extensively, and have been blocked indefinitely. The anon-IPs are all open proxies, and were deemed likely to be used by the same user(s). The throwaway accounts User:Worklikeadog were also found likely to be the same IP/user. --Ragib (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection

To protect the article from continuous anon/open proxy image blanking, I have semi-protected it. However, one of the anon IPs / single purpose accounts claim that since I have an opinion on the issue, admin action (i.e. semi protection of the article) in my part is not ok. I request an uninvolved admin to take a look at it, and decide whether or not semi-protection was not appropriate. In that case, feel free to unprotect the article. I leave it to a third party admin's judgment to decide about semi-protection. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandal group

I have been an observer of Bengal pages in Wikipedia but never ventured to edit. I have logged in primarily to congratulate and thank Ragib for conclusively nailing Ronosen for sock puppetry. However, what he has touched is only the tip of an iceberg. Far from being cowed down they are regrouping to launch fresh attacks. They have already started again. Ronosen and possibly one or two friends of his, have been using the pages of Wikipedia for propagation of a certain ideology of theirs. In order to do so, they have been removing matter and forcing other editors out by abuses, threats and what not. The edit remarks would justify my charges. They are propagating some Adi Dharm , which no responsible historian, religious or otherwise, has upheld. They were initially editing mostly under two acronyms – Landirenzo and Yvantanguy. Now, they have not used these acronyms for more than a month (since middle of May), possibly to avoid scrutiny under the pretext that they are no more in use. Then they edited under the acronym Lillycottage and now they have new acronyms – Worklikeadog and Gayatrisavitr . Apart from numerous confusing acronyms, they frequently edit anonymously, using different PCs – 122.163.156.83, 212.227.114.82, 117.200.145.205, 116.68.248.162, 208.100.55.143. This totally confuses other editors. I shall be grateful to Ragiv if he gets these checked also for sock puppetry. There is need to unearth the entire vandal group. - Ramen Mishra (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Ragib, Priyanath and GDibyendu for the action taken to curb vandalism. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Will appreciate if someone checks Users Sbiben Dutta and Ramen Mishra for sockpupetry who open unipurpoze accounts to vandalize my editings. ShebinDutta today has just vandalised my edit to this page.Lillycottage (talk) 08:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is my ID being dragged into this. Please take out the truth. After delving into the facts I opine, this is actually about "new" editors and "old" editors at Wiki for articles connected to the Brahmo Samaj. Here is what veteran editor P.K.Niyogi had to say to User:Seejee:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Seejee#Brahmo_Samaj

"Regarding the Brahmo Samaj page, you know I have not really been the fighting type. My policy has always been to work on pages where others are not interested. The Brahmo Samaj page has always been a hot spot but later I found that nobody was adding anything but only deleting this and that. That happened for many months and so I kept on restoring materials without giving it much of a thought. Then I found that some people were interested in developing that page and so I have withdrawn.

Those who are now working on the Brahmo Samaj pages seem to be a group nominated by an organisation called Brahmo Conference. I cannot say that what they are adding is baseless. In fact, I could probably agree with much of what they are adding. However, being young these people are rather brash and lack refinement and culture. The pages read more like drab law court reports rather than Wikipedia articles. It certainly would not attract readers. Then they are a bit obsessed with their ideas and are unwilling to accommodate anything that does not suit their thinking.

I agree with your views on the mud slinging campaign but I don’t think that these people are really amenable to reason. Irrespective of personal views on the subject I am off from those pages. You may decide on your own course of action. These people are mentioning some links to a Yahoo group page of Brahmo Conference. You can check on that if you are interested. I had also become a member of that group but decided to quit.

Regards,

P.K.Niyogi (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

The interesting part of Mr.Niyogi's post is "I cannot say that what they are adding is baseless. In fact, I could probably agree with much of what they are adding. However, being young these people are rather brash and lack refinement and culture. The pages read more like drab law court reports rather than Wikipedia articles. It certainly would not attract readers."

If we probe a little further into Mr.P.K.Niyogi's talk page (archives), we find that he was invited to join Brahmo Conference Yahoo group by another User Debanjanray2003

"Dear Mr. P. K. Niyogi, If you are a Brahmo, will you be interested to join our e-mail discussion group brahmoconference@yahoogroups.com ? visit website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference. My vision: 1) To collect and publish information about who-is-who in Brahmo religion 2) To collect all good materials about Brahmoism. 3) To connect all Brahmos in the world and hence revive this religion. Regards, - Debanjan Ray (e-mail: debanjan.ray@siemens.com and debanjanray2003@yahoo.co.in )"

On probing further we find DebanjanRay2003 (from his Talk page) to be a serial plagiarist and vandal closely linked with User P.K.Niyogi both of whom mysteriously stopped editing Brahmo pages. Somebody should investigate this Brahmo Conference Group for coordinated sockpuppetry of Brahmo articles.

Debanjanray2003's is obviously behind the attack on poor Ronosen whom they deliberately provoked. It is an old story linked to how Ronosen exposed Debanjan Ray's piracy (he sat and took digital camera pictures) of a copyrighted book of Sadharan Brahmo Samaj and uploaded it to Wikisource. Here is that link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:The_Religion_of_the_Brahmo_Samaj

Hope someone acts, but Wikipedia is one of the biggest copyright violation promoters like Google, Youtube etc.. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 10:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make two comments: (1) User:P.K.Niyogi has made great contributions in Wikipedia so far. (2) Gayatrisavitr's changes in Sabarna Roy Choudhury today is constructive. And I would suggest User:Lillycottage to check this and how to add different point-of-view with references without deleting others' changes. Then I guess, we won't have to debate on these things and concentrate on content development and improvement only till people like Ronosen joins back :) --GDibyendu (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahmo Samaj

Worklikeadog suggests that what is happening here is a dispute between two factions of Brahmo Samaj. What factions? Well, there were lots of controversy in the Brahmo Samaj in the 19th century. Now, although the groups maintain different samajes, there is hardly any conflict. Anybody can become a member of more than one samaj and people from one samaj freely participate in the celebrations and functions of another samaj. Intermarriages between members of different samajes have been taking place for more than a century. It is only a few "fundamentalists" like Rono Sen, who are remnants of the past and continue to live in the past, who are unneccessarily raking up old issues and creating confusion. This particular group is not allowed to project their distorted views in their internal publications and websites, and as such has picked up Wikipedia to propagate their outdated ideas. It is good that Wikipedia adminstrators have understood their objectives and are taking steps to ban them. My heartiest congratulations! - Seejee (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are not many controversies "in" the Brahmo Samaj. The only controversy is with people "outside" Brahmoism who labour under the delusion that they are Brahmos. As Sivanath Sastri wrote in "History of Brahmo Samaj" - "There are many more Brahmos outside Brahmoism than there are within". This statement decoded means "only Brahmins are Brahmos, others have to wait till their 2nd birth". Coincidentally this issue was discussed recently on the other Brahmo Conference group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconferenceorg/message/99 by "Shiben" Dutta. There is no possibility of legally valid inter-marriage (in India) between a non-Brahmin Brahmo Samaji and an Adi Brahmo. It is true that anyone can become a "member" of a Brahmo Samaj, this however is quite different from being a Brahmo. IMHO the only action Wikipedia administrators should take is to ensure that 5 Pillars of Wikipedia are upheld. "He who protest the most should be investigated first." Worklikeadog (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody under 2 or 3 identitys is repeated undoing my constructive editing. To these sick people I must only say, I am not connect with any other identity of Wikipida. If you keep stalking me and revert my edit I formally complain to Administration Board.

Europeanisation includes "The process in which a subject (be it a culture, a language, a city or a nation) adopts a number of European features". On other hand "Europeanize" means "denationalize and subject (a territory) to the supervision of an agency of a European community of nations". (source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Europeanizing )The better sense of context is "Europeanisation" which means "Westernisation" of Asian culture. From Vandalism "Vandalism per se is often considered one of the least serious common crimes, but it can become quite serious and distressing when committed extensively, violently or as an expression of hatred and intimidation.". Lillycottage (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lillycottage, please don't make accusations against other editors without evidence. If you want to file a complaint, go ahead and do so. It turns out that you yourself have been connected to the sockpuppet group using open proxies, along with User:Worklikeadog and User:Ronosen (who was blocked). You can see details here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen. Name calling ('sick', 'stalking', 'vandalism') without evidence, along with continually disruptive editing and revert warring, have you heading toward a block also. Cheers, ~ priyanath talk 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lillycottage, first of all, please learn to communicate in English. Then complain about others. The kind of proficiency displayed by you in the above message makes you hardly the kind of person who could contribute constructively to English Wikipedia. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 19:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Some IP address wrote a message in my talk page claiming to be Lillycottage and wrote 'muy' instead of 'my' twice. :) --GDibyendu (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

With the plethora of charges and counter charges coming up, it is getting increasingly confusing. I would like to make it clear that I have no links with the Brahmo Samaj and if there is anybody there with the same name, it is a mere coincidence. I have academic interest in Brahmo Samaj history, particularly the renaissance links. While Lillycottage is threatening me for deleting his POV edits, Worklikeadog has deleted a well referenced quote from Shibnath Shastri on the Ramkamal Sen page, because it is against their thinking and propagation. I request the support of other right thinking editors in retaining it. I have also deleted some evident mud slinging edits on this page. There is a long discussion on the subject on the Talk:Brahmoism page. While I am amenable to positive editing, I am opposed to forcible propagation of any point of view. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 14:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Universal Religion

The argument put up by :Worklikeadog is accepted for the time- being, I emphasise time-being because I do not think that Wikipedia is the right place for mud slinging and personal attacks – certainly not a biography page. I have added a new section on Universal Religion. retaining Shibnath Shastri’s quote and addiing the quotes of Bipin Chandra Pal and Chittaranjan Das deleted by the group on the Brahmo Samaj page on the plea of it being Navabidhan propaganda and there was an advice too - “take this to NavaBidhan Samaj page” (13 September 2007 by 116.68.240.162). I suppose this page may be considered a Nava Bidhan Samaj page! - Shiben Dutta (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What you think is not pertinent, the Rules / Policies of Wikiepedia are. What "group" is there on the Brahmo Samaj page? Only 1 editor Pk Niyogi whose material was deleted there had some material removed. You are reinserting into Wikipedia exactly what was originally inserted by editor PK Niyogi on 1 July 2006, and for which deleted matter there is discussion recorded on Talk:Brahmo Samaj and Talk User:Seejee etc. Evidently the matter deleted was not "encyclopedic". From Pk Niyogi's Talk record at Wikipedia it appears that the "group" at Brahmo Samaj has been in existence since 2006 and he was the sole victim. This "group" includes some of the most prolific editors of Wikipedia on religion Worklikeadog (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I must clarify two things. First, I have useed material initially from Brittanica and that used by P.K.Niyogi. I am sure that I am entitled to do so. However, I am not a ‘copy cat’ as implied, and my small contribution already made will reflect this. Secondly, by “group”, I mean Ronosen and his group. This has already been clarified by Priyanath above and a summary is available here – Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen.

Wikipedia is a neutral forum, not the mouth piece of any particular group. Therefore, while Ronosen & Co. are welcome to add their point of view with relevant references, they should not twist things as being part of their propaganda campaign. This biography of Keshub Chunder Sen should reflect what the world at large thinks of him and not what Ronosen & Co propagates. He happens to represent the Brahmo Conference which he himself says was formed ‘to publicly denounce and expose Keshab Sen and his Nabo Bidhan movement from every platform as being "anti-Brahmo" ’ When such people write Keshub Sen’s biography, the result is what we had on this page but should Wikipedia be allowed to be a platform for such a fanatical group?

I have deleted some parts of the reference to Ramkamal Sen. First, I have put up a separate biography of Ramkamal Sen. Secondly, his being associated with the Zamindary Association does not make him an employee of the Tagore family – it is POV mud slinging.

His physical description as a child will be of interest to all those who have followed the efforts of Ronosen in deleting his photograph. I will be adding more matter but I will take a little time. I must thank the Wikipedia community for enabling me to do so in the face of such high tech propagandists as Ronosen. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 05:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Former User:Ronosen has never represented the Brahmo Conference Organisation (1881) which stands to publicly denounce Keshab Sen and Nabobidhan movement. Ronosen is a Christian and hence not eligible for membership of the organisation. He is however a member of another deceptively styled Brahmo Conferenece Organisation (1891) Yahoo group which supports Keshab Sen and Nabobidhan. The 1881 Conference's Yahoo group is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconferenceorg/ whereas the 1891 Conference's group is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/ . Mr.P.K.Niyogi was only a member of the 1891 group. He masqueraded as User:Jayanta1952 and made the following threat to User:Yvantanguy via Talk "I have put up a Kaliprasanna Singha quote on the Brahmo page. It is unfair of you to delete it again and again. Be fair, and you will get a fair treatment from others, but if you go on deleting like this I will upload similar quotes and go on doing it. Even if it is not on the page because of deletions, it will be there in the record files and I will call in other people for assistance. - Jayanta1952 (talk) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)". On the same day PK_Niyogi then issued the following call to the 1891 group's ring leader Debanjan Ray at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/message/500 to which prohibited (by Wiki policy) call User:Debanjan Ray and and "Biswajit" Dutta rallied to his rescue and have operated many fake and dummy accounts on his behalf at Wikipedia. Even Mr. User:Ronosen rallied to Niyogi's assistance see here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconference/message/500 on behalf of the Andhra Pradesh "Brahmos" (who are actually converted scheduled caste Christians not recognised by Brahmos). So User: Shiben Dutta please get your facts in order and dont confuse other editors. Ronosen is a descendant of Keshab Sen and does not want his photo deleted here, that is the other 1881 group.Gayatrisavitr (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Gayatrisavitr (or whoever is using that user name now ... it's difficult to keep track in a crowd of socks :( ), Mr. Niyogi is a well-respected wikipedian who has contributed immensely to wikipedia in the last few years. Unless you have any proof, please do not launch personal attacks against him. See WP:NPA for reference. Wikipedia is NOT a battleground, and doesn't care much about the infighting among a religious group's factions. --Ragib (talk) 08:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ever since Ronosen got in to trouble obviously for his misdeeds, he has been looking for scapegoats. I came in handy because he had labelled me ‘Navabidhani’ – follower of Keshub Sen. That declaration was of course unilateral. I have contributed the biographies of a number of followers of Keshub Sen, along with hundreds of other pages. That was my only ‘sin’ – focussing on Navabidhan. I had stopped working on the Brahmo Samaj pages much earlier and shifted to other work. After Ronosen became active I stopped even surveillance work on those pages. They almost had a free hand till he completely dismantled the biography on this page and filled it with an abusive portrayal of Keshub Sen. Then the incidents related to the photograph took place and he got blocked indefinitely but his socks are active. I must praise Ragib and Priyanath for their deft handling of the matter. I am sure that they will continue to do so. I intend to close my account. Ronosen can continue to spew as much venom on this poor, old ‘Navabidhani’ as he likes. He has been caught red handed in the net of his own creation. Regards to all. - P.K.Niyogi (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Listen guys, first of all put up a count which say that you have got 17,000+ edits to the Wiki and then claim that a User as respected as P.K. Niyogi has indulged in sockpuppetry. When you live in glass houses, please don't throw stones at others. And this comes from me, who is a Hindu and neither support nor endorse any of your views. Shovon (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And a brahmin at that. Although, I must add non-practicing. Because, I have forgotten, when I had last visited a temple. :-)Shovon (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro Dispute

I have placed a dispute tag on the following issues for this article. (NB: This is an article on a controversial person who left behind "a few warm friends and many bitter enemies")

1. Was Sen a Brahmo ?
2. If so, was Sen the 3rd leader of Brahmos after R.M.Roy and D.N.Tagore?
3. Was Sen India's first spokesman in the West? Gayatrisavitr (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I am only rejoining this page / discussion well after 24 hours have elapsed. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge about the subject or the dispute. I think this is weakness and a strength. Weakness because I would not be able to relate much to the problem but strength because my views would be neutral. Please provide valid references to the points made by you for the dispute. I would like to review the sources and the text put in the article from them. If any other party has some different opinion please do the same. --gppande «talk» 19:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have rewritten the Intro with RS cites to make it as comprehensive and NPOV and yet bring out the facets and controversies of the individual's life.Bengalibaboo (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have edited the Intro to balance it in terms of POV, and to make it what a lede should be "a short, independent summary" per WP:LEAD. It was neither short nor independent nor a summary. ~ priyanath talk 15:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

So, I think we are fine here now. Thanks all. --gppande «talk» 16:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Shivanath Shastri?

Shivanath Shastri does not appear to be a reliable source for Keshub Chunder Sen, since he broke away and began his own rival organization, from what I can see. I propose removing all the content using references from what is clearly a POV and non-neutral source. The POV-pushing in this article would be quickly cleaned up if it used only WP:RS and neutral sources. ~ priyanath talk 19:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference

The following book seems to be a cool reference.

Keshab Chandra Sen and the Brahma Samáj: Being a Brief Review of Indian Theism from 1830 to 1884. By T E Slater. Published 1884.

The book is availabe for full view in google books.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Here[1] is another Google book that has a lengthy biography of Keshab Chandra Sen, by Max Muller, beginning on p. 49. It's neutral, by a noted scholar, and would surely qualify as a WP:RS. Reading it, one can hardly recognize that this Wikipedia article is about the same person. ~ priyanath talk 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And another good reference courtesy of Google Books for those interested in using WP:RS.[2] Religious Thought and Life in India by Monier Monier-Williams, with a long chapter beginning on p. 491 about "Rammohan Roy's Successors". ~ priyanath talk 02:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've removed a fair amount of POV pushing and peacock phrasing both pro- and con- Keshub Chunder Sen. There is still a huge amount of nonsense and long passages that give Undue Weight to various events. I hope other neutral editors can take a whack at it also. ~ priyanath talk 04:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath,Please use the sandbox for test editing. ie.,Please do not micro-edit in this fashion. I could not edit along with you resulting in repeated edit conflicts which caused me to drop out. Now having seen your body of edits, there is still much POV bias remaining. Bengalibaboo (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Priyanath had certainly performed a difficult task and did a great job. Bengalibaboo has added some good material but in seems that he has messed up a bit. There is over emphasis on Sen's Christian ideas. Anyway, this is Wikipedia. I look forward to Priyanath going in for another edit to make things smoother. - Brahmachari (talk) 12:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brahmachari.... Bengalibaboo, piecemeal editing is preferred on Wikipedia, as opposed to doing it all in the sandbox and then doing one wholesale edit. This way there is an edit summary explaining the reason for each change. Edit conflicts do happen unfortunately, and different editors don't always agree - even when they are editing in good faith (as I think we all are now doing!). There is alot of work to do to fix this article. I don't fully agree with how you moved some of the topics into different sections, but that can be fixed over time. Also, please, if you change a well-referenced statement, make sure the reference agrees with your change. Especially when this article has so few references that meet WP:RS. I agree with you that there is still much POV bias remaining. There was so much to begin with, it will take some time. Good references from Reliable Sources will help, so I suggest you read WP:RS to see how and why this article has had such problems - it's really the only way it will be made neutral. Thanks, ~ priyanath talk 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, to have disturbed priyanath's editing. If I had noticed it erlier, I would have held back. Sorry again. Bengali babu seems to be another Brahmo with ant-Keshub Sen bias. There are lot of Brahmos in Wikipedia. Please carry on priyanath. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brahmachari, please dont make personal attacks on other editors and please don't seek assistance of specific editors. Priyanath has given a slant to this article. At the moment I am traveling, when I return to my library (of print editions) will cite all the references properly. To save time can Priyanath provide online links to Slater and his other reference? I seem to recall that Arun Kumar Mukherjee's book was commissioned by the Nava Bidhan Publication Committee and reprinted by the Publications Division of I&B Ministry. I amin an edit conflict with Priyanath again,its very frustrating. The problem with piecemeal editing is the extra computing resources it generates. Editing like Priyanath has just done, makes it tough to undo a specific edit with using Wiki Tools. By "Edit Conflict", I'm referring to "simultaneous" edits. I've just been conflicted with Shiben_Dutta too. This page is HOT !!!Bengalibaboo (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bengalibaboo, I see no personal attack made against you by Brahmachari. Why are you trying to stir things up here and make such accusations? I agree that we need to discuss sources. I propose that before adding new sources, we discuss them here. My proposal is below. As far as piecemeal editing, that's how it's done on Wikipedia, like it or not. ~ priyanath talk 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"that he has messed up a bit" is a personal attack. Innuendo that I am "stirring up things" and "making accusations" is another. Bengalibaboo (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it interesting that all the accounts above sprang up right after the Ronosen incident? i.e. right after 1 July ... :) --Ragib (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to smile about. 3 of 5 Brahmo groups are now represented at Wikipedia to ensure balance and perspective on this article. Bengalibaboo (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is nothing to smile about. In a very short time, members of different Brahmo groups have made several personal attacks, attempted to expose the identity of an editor, forced another editor to retire, lied about content and a photo, POV and edit-warred, and been constantly uncivil and snide. Says quite alot about the current state of some of the Brahmo groups and its members. 'Balance and perspective', eh? If I hear of anyone considering joining you, I'll point them here. Thanks for your part in educating me. :-(

P.S. Add to the above qualities of certain Brahmo editors here: twisting referenced sources to the point of dishonesty (see 'Died a Christian' below). ~ priyanath talk 14:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S. And apologies for lumping all the Brahmo editors together, some have shown civility, honesty, and willingness to work out compromise on some issues here - you know who you are. ~ priyanath talk 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. Add further and more abject apology. All five disruptive editors, User:Ronosen, User:Bengalibaboo, User:Gayatrisavitr, User:Lillycottage, and User:Worklikeadog are one editor and his sockpuppets, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen. So this article doesn't reflect badly on Brahmo members after all, just the one editor. ~ priyanath talk 19:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable and Neutral Sources

This article needs sources that are both Reliable and neutral. Most of the sourcing is from partisan authors on one of the various sides of the Brahmo schisms. According to WP:RS, Self-published sources do not qualify as Reliable. This would eliminate any book published by the various Brahmo Samaj splinter organizations. Third Party sources are also required to meet WP:RS. Therefore Shivnath Shastri would also not be reliable for this article, unless it's clearly stated that it is the opinion of Sen's opponent, since Shastri was not a neutral third party. I believe these sources meet the requirements of WP:RS for this article:

1. Slater, E. B. Keshab Chandra Sen and the Brahma Samáj: Being a Brief Review of Indian Theism. Madras 1884.
2. Murdoch, John. The Brahma Samaj and Other Modern Eclectic Systems of Religion in India. The Christian Literature Society 1893.
3. Biographical Essays by Fredrich Max Müller. Longman's, Green, & Co., London 1884.
4. Farquahar "MODERN RELIGIOUS MOVEMENTS IN INDIA"
5. Monier Monier-Williams, Religious Thought and Life in India

Muller and Monier-Williams meet the highest possible level of WP:RS, since they were leading academics. In addition, I believe quotes by Sen from his own published writings can be used, since he is the subject of the article. I propose other possible sources be added here and discussed, along with the ones I added above. ~ priyanath talk 17:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't comment on the others as yet, but in my view, Max Muller ought to be ruled out. (He is a supporter of Aryan Invasion Theory and other "Sacred Texts" which the subject borrowed extensively from (not Muller's translations but the originals)). Murdoch will also be ruled out being published by a religious body closely associated with Mr.Sen. If we are going to limit this exclusively to ancient Western / Christian authors in public domain lets say so at the outset. There is a tremendous amount of modern research on Brahmoism you know. David Kopf for example. Brian Hatcher is another. Shibnath Shastri is one of the most reliable Historians around - the second edition of his book (not the first one in PD) is very well researched, balanced and more than exceeds WP:RS requirements. If editors choose to pick and choose extracts from Shastri, that does not make him un-RS, he has an equal number of positive things to say about Sen. We must appreciate that for Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, Mr.Sen is a vital link in their evolutionary chain. What is the consensus on Arun Mukherjee's book? I also welcome the suggestion that quotes from Sen's published works can be used <rol><he-he> :-) 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To the list above, I suggest

Gazetteer of India (Vol. 2 2nd edition)

Prof Oman's Brahman and Theists

Manilal C Parikh's books

Ram Chandra Basu : Brahmoism (1884)

History of Adi Brahmo Samaj, published by S.K.Lahiri (1903)

Tattwabodhini Patrika

Preface to 2nd edition of "Brahmo Dharma" (1869) published by ChakravartyBengalibaboo (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Arun Kumar Mukherjee, who was professor and head of the department of Bengali, University of Calcutta, says in the Preface to the book Keshub Chunder Sen, “This volume on Keshub Chunder Sen in the series ‘Bulders of Modern India’, has been written at the request of Publications Division…” This book is not a republicaion or reprint, and should be considered as one of the authentic biographies. Unfortunately Keshub-baiters think that only those books that criticised him are good. That cetainly cannot be Wikipedia thinking on biographies.

Bengalibaboo is following the same thinking as the Brahmo vandals. There is enough material despising Keshub Sen. There is no need for more. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regrettably Mr.Dutta is not true to his sources, neglecting to mention Mr.Mukherjee's sole source of information for this book, mentioned at the end of the Preface . He also fails to disclose the last line in the book (at the end of the list of references). The book is a faithful rehash of a previous book published by Keshub's Nabobidhan and is definitely P.O.V and O/R and unworthy of being considered RS. Notwithstanding all that, it is also clear from the official website of the Publication Division (http://www.publicationsdivision.nic.in/Eng-Pub/Au-Wise/EB33.HTM) that Mr.Mukherjee has set out to "portray" and "depict" Keshub in a favourable light (possibly to fulfill the Ministry's mandate). Here is an extract:-

"This book portrays Keshab Chunder Sen as one of the makers of modern India. The six chapters in the book depicts Keshub Sen as a philosopher and thinker, a journalist and a prose-maker."

In my expert opinion, the state of historical education and research integrity in Calcutta is not what it used to be. Gayatrisavitr (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"died a christian"

Farquhar doesn't state that Sen 'died a Christian', but that a Mr. K.C. Banurji 'maintained' that Sen 'died a Christian'. Farquhar states that Sen "never surrendered himself to Christ as Lord." So I've removed that passage altogether, since it was the opinion of one person, and actually denied by Farquhar. As far as becoming a Buddhist, Farquhar reports that someone heard Sen singing to the "mother of Buddha" as he was lying on his bed. Still not notable for this article and certainly Original Research to state that he 'turned to Buddhism'. Bengalibaboo, you are confirming my beliefs about some modern day Brahmos (see above). ~ priyanath talk 23:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually Farquahar states that Sen's "deepest theological beliefs were fully Christian, but he never surrendered himself to Christ the Lord." ... Mr.K.C.Banurji "who maintained with great consistency and earnestness, that Keshab died a Christian" was, as per Mr Farquahar, "the Registrar of Calcutta University.. very intimate with Kashab .. and no ordinary man, and he had no hazy, indistinct conception of Christian faith". Mr Farquahar goes on to record "It is thus certain that in conversation with Mr.Banurji, Keshab gave expression to a full, clear, distinct faith in Jesus Christ". Farquahar goes on to record a conversation of Mr. Sen's closest lieutenant and his successor Mr.P.C.Mazoomdar that "Mr Mazoomdar assured him that his own faith, and Keshab's also was precisely of the deepest Christian life, and said that the reason why he and Keshab did not give public expression to these beliefs was that they held they would be more likely to bring their fellow-countrymen to full faith in Christ by a gradual process than by a sudden declaration of what they believed.". When Mr.Farquahar says "Thus Keshab's deepest beliefs were Christain beliefs, yet he was not a Christian", the correct reading is that Keshab is not Mr.Farquahar's variety of Christian, in the same way that Brahmos vehemently oppose that Keshab was a Brahmo. The fact of the matter (from reliable sources) is that Keshab was a social climbing opportunist with no consistency in his doctrine or scruples, all he wanted was to be a God-man and be worshipped (India is littered with examples of such people). Sen is uniformly assailed (by several reliable sources) for his inconsistency and theological claptrap (Farquhar generally is all priase for Rammohan Roy or D,.N.Tagore), and whereas Farquahar says Keshab was a Hindu who became a Christian, the other reference by Gayatrisavitra says that he was a Christian who became a Hindu. (his guardian Ram Kamal Sen had converted to Christianity in his youth but then likewise reconverted back after drinking cows urine etc, and became a very staunch Hindu). Sorry to disabuse you, but I am a "modern Hindu". Since you are so fond of Max Muller as RS, why not quote from Keshab's letter to Max Muller about New Dispensation and Christianity? Bengalibaboo (talk) 09:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Christians would universally say that someone who hasn't "surrendered himself to the Lord" is not a Christian. It's obvious he was a syncretist who brought together threads from many different faiths. Something for which fundamentalists of all faiths (including Hindu, Christian, and Brahmo) would and did condemn him - there are even some doing that on this talk page :-) . ~ priyanath talk 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rono Sen

priyanath has done a great job in unearthing the puppet-racket operated by Rono Sen and 15 puppets have been blocked. See here. However, it was not expected that that it would put an end to the activities of a fanatical propagandist like him. Well armed with high technology, he has thrown a threat to continue vandalising interesting Brahmo pages. Brahmo pages may not be of much interest to many Wikipedians. Particularly painful is the disinterest shown by Indian admins. If everybody starts thinking that Brahmo pages are not worth the time and effort, then the thinking would encourage many other vandals and spoil Wikipedia. It is really surprising how just one man has been pushing through his POV throwing out others. I call upon all right-thinking Wikipedians to help in fighting this vandalism. - Shiben Dutta (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Brahmo

Perhaps all the Brahmo vandals and other species of puppets should sit and discuss these things. To help out, start from here: WP:Brahmo, Make Love not War. Project brahmo (talk) 11:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism by 65.49.14.93

65.49.14.93 In the name of copy edit, fact tags, and information was removed, here is a example. I will be reverting to the revision 09:31, 10 September 2008 before these changes. -- vineeth (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

This article does not meet Wiki norms. Editors are entitled to delete unreferenced / dubious facts for which fact tags have languished here for over 90 days. 65.49.14.93 (talk) 09:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

After carefully reviewing what NVineeth had reverted (claiming "vandalism") I have reinstalled my edits. NVineeth seems to be POVing Ramakrishna & [Keshub Chunder Sen]] on these articles. Any specific edit by me offensive to NVineeth or Wiki policy can be discussed on this talk page. 65.49.14.93 (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Whats POV for you has been published by a Reliable Source. Pls check the references. -- vineeth (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we discussing the deletion of some Ramakrishna related text you added to this article or is it beyond that? Looking at your recent edit history, yours is clearly a single purpose account for Ramakrishna, hence POVing. Excessive quotes do not an encyclopedia make, RS notwithstanding. 65.49.14.82 (talk) 17:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

My dear IP editor, if someone has all the sources to support his/her claims, then you cannot arbitrarily delete the edits. Such an act will be seen as an act of vandalism. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IP editor, you have a point, New Dispensation != Brahmo samaj, we can definitely incorporate this into the article, but pls dont delete the referenced material in the name of copy edit, you can discuss this POV and make the necessary corrections., Thanks. -- vineeth (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keshub Chandra Sen. 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/20120725010722/http://sadharanbrahmosamaj.org/ to http://sadharanbrahmosamaj.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keshub Chandra Sen. 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/20100119024300/http://www.masonindia.org/WellKnownFreeMasons.htm to http://www.masonindia.org/WellKnownFreeMasons.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 17 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus. After all this time, see no general agreement below to rename this article title to a different spelling. A redirect will suffice. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  19:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

Keshub Chandra Sen → Keshab Chandra Sen – Both forms of his name are acceptable, but the spelling used consistently in the article (other than in quotes etc.) is Keshab. GrindtXX (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose His first name was Keshub, not Keshab. Also the Chandra should be Chunder. I suggest that the article be written with Keshub everywhere to maintain consistency. 49.36.133.128 (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indian National Association?

What of his involvement in the Indian National Association? 31.215.19.234 (talk) 09:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC) R.E.D.

Kababaihan

mga na patay na kababaihan 112.210.229.5 (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)