WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Philosophy C‑class
WikiProject iconBrahmo Samaj has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do.Vital articlesWikipedia:WikiProject Vital articlesTemplate:Vital articlevital articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

CONTENT DISPUTE: Copyrighted, controversial media on page[edit]

this is the place for the latest on the Keshab image dispute Landirenzo (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latest on Keshav image is that after "Village Pump (Policy)" is inconclusive, I posted the discussion to "Wikipedia:Media copyright questions" which is a specific article for such issues. The "latest" is
"Actually, I've looked into the debate surrounding this image a little further, and I think my initial answer was incorrect. On further reflection, I tend to agree that this work cannot be established as being in the public domain unless a date of publication can be established, given the following quote from Wikipedia's public domain guidelines: "When a work has not been published in the U.S. but in some other country, that other country's copyright laws also must be taken into account." However, if Indian law has a clause similar to the U.S.'s "right to assume public domain status" rule cited by Dragon's flight, then the image can be considered PD after all. I continue to make no comment on the authenticity of the photo, which is not a copyright question. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" Yvantanguy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, what does Indian Copyright Law have to say on this :-) Landirenzo (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keshub died in 1884. By all means, 60 years has been passed since this photo was taken and it is in public domain by Indian Copyright Law. --GDibyendu (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CONTENT DISPUTE: Meaning of Name[edit]

revised recent "Meaning of name" edit by 'Yvantanguy'. Reason - Disambiguation. The modern definitions, though exceedingly precise, do not find much mention and/or use in the old references and histories. In articles like Brahmo Samaj with strong orientation to history, the traditional ("archaic" is OK) meanings could be retained for consistency and to prevent conflict dispute. Landirenzo (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meaning of name? it seems all right for now - no dispute, as long as Brahmo and Brahmo Samaj are separate pages. However it doesn't give a good lead-in to the article. (no zing)Yvantanguy (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For yvantanguy. recent edits, reverts. The section is now synthetic (too many differing sources). It is unclear what you intend conveying to first time visitors who know nothing about the Brahmo Samaj. You are also likely to initiate content dispute with your fellow Brahmo editors. For instance, Supreme Spirit, Supreme Being. Universe. Landirenzo (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have tried to synthesize it more seamlessly. Actually half the problem here arises from the introduction to this article. Would appreciate your assistance. Yvantanguy (talk) 11:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would not be ethical for me to assist only you. Be patient, the articles will mature in time. Diversity of inputs is what makes Encyclopedia. Let the articles flow (or meander) where they will, Nature (natural process) is self regulating. Co-exist with your fellow editors, be tolerant, allow non-Brahmos and un-Brahmos to share this Maya. Stick to Reliable Sources. Abide by Wiki Policies. The introductions to Brahmo Samaj and Brahmoism are improved significantly. Brahmo is the laggard now. Distinctions, if any, between the Adi and Sadharan streams need clarification, till then the Doctrine Template remains. Landirenzo (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

A recent editor B.Nambiar is repeatedly undoing here and at Brahmoism, Ram Mohan Roy without discussing. He appears to be upset with the sources being cited for this article. He may leave his comments here citing his own sources if he has any. Yvantanguy (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try attempting to focus on the content of the edits rather than the editor. Your fabrication and misrepresentation of source concerning Judeo-Islamic elements in Brahmoism, with the additional claim that Judeo-Christian elements are somehow scientific is OR. I have looked through the disputable source, the main website, and it does not mention these elements. KBN (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did I misrepresent the source? Actually the source says Hebrew - Islamic "creed and practice". So I apologise, Hebrew is not exactly the same as Jewish, maybe there are some subtle differences which I am ignorant of? Furthermore all this is there in many RS also (Not OR) such as 1924 speech of Sir Brajendranath Seal and books of Farquhar, Ghosh, Ganguly, David Knopf etc. Brahmo Historian Sivanath Sastri states with certainty that for all practical purposes R.M.Roy lived as a Muslim (Islam). R.M.Roy's awakening against Hindu evils was on Islamic foundation of monothheism and discipline - please read up on the man. The term "scientific" is repeatedly used for Brahmoism (not only in the reference website), say by Indians like Jayant Narlikar, B.N.Seal, Acharya J.C.Bose etc. and not only by foreigners. BTW I have never claimed that either Judiaism is scientific or Christianity is either. What was added (by me or another) is that common (compatible with reformed Hinduism) Judeo-Islamic elements were incorprated into Brahmoism "scientifically" - there is a big difference, please do not distort my words. Yvantanguy (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further to the above, whereas I also do not always agree with that website, I shall locate the sources for those remarks (Judeo-Islamic) and cite them for you. Kindly do not revert my undo till then. You may also see WP:CITE where a general citation is usually sufficient (which I had given). On challenge a "specific" in-line citation can be given - which right I am asserting. Yvantanguy (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is ridiculous to see the word scientific thrown in with Judaism or Islam in the form of "scientifically invigorating", but I now see this description of in a small section on the side of the page, though I don't believe the webpage qualifies as a reliable source. I also hope you do not add any prejudiced statements like "Hindu evils" into the article. KBN (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Nambiar, I shall not dignify your remarks with a reply today. Kindly cool off - like me. I reiterate that by saying "reflecting its non-syncretic foundation on reformed spiritual Hinduism invigorated by scientific blending of compatible Judeo-Islamic faith and practice" this does not logically imply that I am saying that Judaism or Islam are "scientific", they may very well be - but I am not saying it since it is not relevant to this issue. The website is reasonably factual and is a compromise for all warring Brahmo factions. Every document there is 3rd party (like Parliamentary proceedings on Hindu Code Bill, or Supreme Court Judgemnts etc. - do you dispute that also?). If you have problems with Christian sources like Farquhar (he was YMCA Christian missionary) etc. please cite alternatives, otherwise we shall have to rely on W.M.Carey, Marshman etc. who are "prejudiced" unlike me. Yvantanguy (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you have replied?. I feel there are more accurate ways to describe an incorporation of Judeo-Islamic elements into a faith than this "scientifically invigorated by inclusion of root Hebraic - Islamic creed and practice." What is the difference between saying that a religion is scientifically invigorated by elements of other religions rather than just saying that the religion includes elements of other religions?, it can be considered an opinion and therefore to be attributed to the owner of this opinion. Be aware that this difference in presenting content has the potential to mislead. KBN (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Put it within quotes and move on. Relata refero (disp.) 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with User:Relata_refero. It is (almost exactly) a quote from the brahmosamaj.org website. I shall insert exactly what is on the website so there is no doubt it is a quote. It is the official website for Brahmo religionists, and as moderate (reasonable) as such religious websites can be. Yvantanguy (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On going through the history logs for this article, I want to clarify that my last edit setting out the "quote" from the website was not to my mind a "revert". (In any case I am chilling out for next 24 hours and not editing any Brahmoism related article at WP, but shall do cinema instead). Can some helpful user / admin assist us all on this issue though for future guidance. A User has challenged a general statement (originally stated as "fact" and unquoted) in this article on Brahmo Samaj that "It is without doubt the most influential socio-religious movement in the evolution of Modern (Greater) India.". At the end of the short para where this statement is contained there was a citation for Mr.Farquahar's book with title, year, edition and page no. To further accomodate this User (when he said POV) a second specific in-line reference (using ref tag pair) for the disputed statement is added at the spot. The User is still dissatisfied and insists on adding quotation marks prefixed as "According to J.N.Farquhar ...", and the existing in-line reference is not deleted but retained. The User demonstrably has no objection to treating Mr.Farquhar as a RS for religious matters Indian, he is just unhappy with this particular statement of Mr.Farquhar in a Public Domain book of 1915 - which he wants to be balanced. Similarly this User is dissatisfied with another quote equally well cited in the article from the official Brahmo Samaj website. He initially denied that there is any such quote. Then he admits it was there tucked away in some small corner but now states it is "opinion with potential to mislead" and starts arguing with me (why me?) that it could be better presented - while not presenting any RS or citation of his own to contradict this disputed statement. My Query: I'm sure that this is a very common situation in religious articles at WP, what is the advice for new WP editors to deal with it? The context for this is also that there is lots of unsourced "fact" on this article some of it from very old edits, which can be challenged ("nit-picked") by anyone, So does every fact on this page need a RS which has to be set out in quotations naming the author in the body text in controversial religious articles? Yvantanguy (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yvantanguy is quoting sources which are not reliable. The Brahmo Samaj.org is a bogus site put up by a section of the Brahmo Samaj propbaly the same poeple who are now propagating here. When one puts up material on one's own website and quotes it here, it is not a reliable source. KBN has a point and that should be accommodated. - Poor Henry (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear Poor Henry, I have no love for the website. You may proceed to delete whatever I added to the disputed section by my edit of 6th April 2008 at 12:28 which is from this website. It originally read as
"Brahmo Samaj (Bengali ব্রাহ্ম সমাজ Bramho Shômaj) is a component of Brahmoism which culminated in the Brahmo religion. It is also the influential social movement in the evolution of Modern (Greater) India. It was conceived as reformation of the prevailing Bengal of the time and began the Bengal Renaissance of the 19th century.", I altered this to
"Brahmo Samaj (Bengali ব্রাহ্ম সমাজ Bramho Shômaj) is the societal component of Brahmoism which culminates as the Brahmo religion. It is without doubt the most influential socio-religious movement in the evolution of Modern (Greater) India. It was conceived as reformation of the prevailing Bengal of the time and began the Bengal Renaissance of the 19th century pioneering all religious, social and educational advance of the Hindu community in the 19th century [1]. From the Brahmo Samaj springs Brahmoism the most recent of legally recognised religions in India and Bangladesh, reflecting its foundation on reformed spiritual Hinduism with vital elements of Judeo-Islamic faith and practice.[2]"
You may note that I had then added 2 (acceptable to Wiki policy) citations to the previously uncited / unsupported introduction to this article. I could equally allege that you (a newly created identity) may also be behind that website. If you have some justification for your allegation, please cite it. Yvantanguy (talk) 03:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amitdas04 a newly created account has had some edits reverted by me in this and another linked article. The reasons for these are:- substituting the external link to a working website http://www.brahmosamaj.org by another non-functional website. Inserting dubious doctrine (in a section tagged as Disputed). Inserting dubious definitions for Brahmoism on the page for Brahmo adherents, etc. Landirenzo (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, 2 hours later the substituted link http://thebrahmosamaj.net is functional. I observe that the site contains copyright material previously hosted on http://thebrahmosamaj.org (with copyright assertion) some of which identical material is also on the substituted external link http://brahmosamaj.org (but with GFDL). Here is an image link to the last cached screenshot of http://thebrahmosamaj.org and deceptively similar to http://thebrahmosamaj.net http://source.domaintools.com/thumbnail.pgif?version=1&username=magichans&key=ghqfv-81528-nwonz-58583-sxjkf&url=thebrahmosamaj.org&size=10

which .org domain is currently registered to "3D Acquisitions". Landirenzo (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The http://brahmosamaj.org now displays the following
NOTICE
The editors of the website are shocked to learn on 10-April-2008 that original material from this website is being used by commercial websites to solicit money for international con-artists and donations from the public and also mislead them to pornographic and other unsuitable places. The public at large is cautioned against such fake websites, and urged not to be deceived. An illustrative list of such unsuitable websites is as follows
http://brahmo.org
http://thebrahmosamaj.org
http://adibrahmosamaj.org
http://sadharanbrahmosamaj.org
An emergency meeting of editorial board is being convened to authorise the nominees to take requisite action against such websites including legal measures to protect all copyright and intellectual property of Brahmo Samaj and Brahmo religion.
This website is not a commercial website, but solely for authentic dissemination of unbiased information on Brahmoism. We neither solicit nor accept money from the public or organisation or State, either directly or indirectly. It is further clarified that Brahmos are not required to make donations on religious occasions. Payment of annual subscription fee (approx. Rs.100 which is the minimum amount specified by law in India) to a Samaj is optional and does not affect one's religious status as Brahmo. Donations solicited for idolatry etc. are antiBrahmo. 69.50.160.154 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ "Modern Religious movements in India, J.N.Farquhar (1924)" page 29 etc.
  2. ^ Official Brahmo website - http://brahmosamaj.org

Number of adherents[edit]

It’s really hard to believe that this religion has almost 8 million adherents, if only 177 persons declared themselves a "Brahmo". On top of that, their history in the article ends 70 years ago… 82.35.81.189 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brahmoism legal recognition[edit]

This article claims that Brahmoish is the most recent legally recognized religion of India, but I can't find anything on it anywhere else. The sources there seem to be dead. Can anyone link an actual source that Brahmoism was ever legally recognized as a religion in India? 103.170.182.115 (talk) 02:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories