Talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty

Untitled

own. Since the section seems pretty strong in the way it is written, would request either the content be rephrased or deleted until valid references are found. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Information in this self published source I.e. the personal blog doesn't violate WP:ABOUTSELF. It has given direct citation from the books of the person. Other sources are also verified blog magazines approved by WP:NEWSBLOG, correcting citing to the person's ideology to website of his own followers. Moreover a controversy section is required to maintain nutrality of the article, to disapprove any controversy, the sourced should be factually debunked.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 23:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Citing from wikipedia policies for self published sources - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works 1) Self published sources can be used for claims about himself/herself - which is not true in this case 2) They are reliable when produced by an expert on the topic - not provable in the context of this reference 3) When the statement concerns the source itself - again not true in this case. Hence, clearly the policy cannot be used in defence of this section. Also, based on the unreliability of the sources, it would be better off not placing allegations without enough research rather than placing it just for namesake of neutrality.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 02:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, the author is not providing any verifiable non-regional language references and yet makes allegations. Would request providing authentic, english references if any, for the same.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 03:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The editor fails to reply to these valid questions and is just responding back with counterattacks of strong words.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The references made on the controversy section by the user Charbak is either self published propaganda article or from some biased user with very strong words without any proof in any form. You cannot accuse someone with a blatant lie like that without any proof. Just for the sake of neutrality you cannot provide information that has no basis to it. The edit from Charbak are without any verified source, magazine or book. The self published source mentioned by Charbak doesn't cater to any authenticity and are illogical, biased to the core. I apprehend this is the person who has been doing changes in different form to spread the lie. Wiki admin can verify this by comparing the history when the anonymous user where the current content will match when he changed the article to a total false one. Wiki admins should look this matter seriously and verify the motive of Charbak. It should be reverted to the previous version before Charbak's edits.

None of these news blogs have been written by me, but by verifiable authors, neither am I using a sock puppet account repeatedly to ill-use Wikipedia to as an advertisement of some cult.

He has also added information on the introduction and below are my questions to Charbak.

1. Self-proclaimed Godman? Where did you Charbak learn this? Couldn't find any reference. 2. Radha Soami organization has nothing to do with Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra. He never visited this Organization in his entire lifetime or had any contacts in whatsoever form. On what basis are you writing this? What is your reference for this statement? 3. You cannot use false propaganda like 6 wives? These are very strong allegations without base, proof and reference.

It is very interesting to note that this user never checked my reference before claiming it a propaganda, which is a scholarly study on RadhaSoami movement by Mark Juergensmeyer an American scholar in religious studies and sociology, published by Princeton University Press.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 06:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I would highly appreciate if any Wiki admin can look into the changes from Charbak. WikiLoneCrusader (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I deliberately want to know whether removing secondary reference from a scholarly book to depict the person as the leader of an independent movement is propaganda or not.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 06:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Death and legacy section

No valid references are mentioned in this section for the battles mentioned by the author. Would again request the content to be rephrased or deleted until valid references are found.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Introduction section

The author Charbak has edited the content a couple of times mentioning that "Anukul Thakur was a self-proclaimed godman who promoted the Radha Soami organization" - The only reference given for this is https://books.google.co.in/books?id=slX3eRycszMC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Brace,+Kerry+(1977).+The+Living+Ideal&source=bl&ots=YFEjHqK2uF&sig=ZK4hoS31nXgJVXwcY0b1fDxbYMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV3eyp25PeAhUIqo8KHdrXCUoQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Anukul&f=false which links to the text "Anukul Thakar Chand established Pabna Devghar Satsang in what is now Bangladesh" - This reference has few issues a) The name definitely does not match the personality in question b) Even if it refers to the same person, it nowhere mentions that the individual promoted the Radha Soami organization. c) neither does it say that the personality in question was a self-proclaimed godman. d) Also the reference links to google books but with the search text - "The Living Ideal by Brace, Kerry" whereas the book referred - "Radhasoami Reality: The Logic of a Modern Faith" - is different. Seems to me like some unprofessional references being used. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 02:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This page https://books.google.co.in/books?id=slX3eRycszMC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Brace,+Kerry+(1977).+The+Living+Ideal&source=bl&ots=YFEjHqK2uF&sig=ZK4hoS31nXgJVXwcY0b1fDxbYMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV3eyp25PeAhUIqo8KHdrXCUoQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Anukul&f=false clearly mention that Anukul himself split from his Guru's organization. It also seems to me to call scholarly work from Princeton university unprofessional to remove it from reference is but pure vandalism.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 08:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Charbaka- From your reference, it does not say " He is a self-proclaimed godman". Hence, this statement should be removed. --Sandippradhan86 (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The assertion whether the person is a self proclaimed godman or not, doesn't require specific mention in references, rather this biographical article fully meets all the standards of a self-proclaimed Godman ([1][[2]]) who started a new religious cult to attract people.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 14:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Charbaka Jim1138 Your argument justifies that he was a Godman as he started " a new religion" ( let's assume he did). It doesn't justify "self-proclaimed" and none of your weak citations does. Hence, the "self-proclaimed" should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.244.96 (talk) 00:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Charbaka, your reference (below link) is about "Radhasomai Reality" is not a biography of "Anukulchandra Chakravarty". I believe you need to provide a valid reference. I hope you understand what is a biography.--Sandippradhan86 (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=slX3eRycszMC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=Brace,+Kerry+(1977).+The+Living+Ideal&source=bl&ots=YFEjHqK2uF&sig=ZK4hoS31nXgJVXwcY0b1fDxbYMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiV3eyp25PeAhUIqo8KHdrXCUoQ6AEwCnoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=Anukul&f=false

It is unnecessary for the scholarly book to be his biography, which is rather a critical survey of the Radhasoami movement, to say that he originally split up from the main organization to establish his own branch.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 18:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Early life

In early life, it has mentioned that "He had six wives in total" but there is no reference for this. However, in the infobox it is clearly mentioned that "He has 2 wives with names".

--Sandippradhan86 (talk) 13:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

'In the infobox it is clearly mentioned that "He has 2 wives with names"'--It seems to be an blatant misinformation, as 'official' websites of Anukulchandra's followers, as primary sources, mention at-least four named wives . This gallery from the official devotee website [3] mentions three wives in name, on a photo-"SriSri Thakur being helped in eating by his wives from left Suprava Devi ( Bhusnima) Sarasibala Devi (Boroma)and Sarvamangala Devi (Chotoma)". The same website in a biography of the person https://www.srisrithakuranukulchandra.com/index.php/downloads-video/doc_download/584-istaprokta-thakur-brief-biography states; "Anuka Devi was born to Parulbala Devi, Sri Sri Thakur's wife from different varna". So here we get names of four named wives Suprava Devi, Sarasibala Devi, Sarvamangala Devi and Parulbala Devi. The last among the fours was mostly ignored by his followers as she was from a 'different varna'. So may be the other two wives, according to this [4], not named for belonging to lower-casts. Even if you deny the number of his wives to be six, you can't deny his four named wives.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 14:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Stable version

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, thank you for protecting this page from warring edits. However, please can I request a stable version to be restored. If you notice, all the edit warring has started since a revision on 18th October, posted by an anonymous user who made a lot of changes without providing sufficient authentic references. (cur | prev) 09:01, 18 October 2018 2405:205:212c:5948:e0d1:10cd:6f88:3ee7 (talk) . . (24,971 bytes) (-210) . . (Deleted dubious unsourced claims from the followers and added controversy section to keep Wikipedia's neutrality.) (Tags: Visual edit, possible vandalism)

If you look at the details of his edits, he added some content of his own - eg. "mention of 6 wives", "controversy" etc without providing authentic non-regional non-personal references. Thereafter there has been repeated back and forth addition and removal of the content by the same user via both anonymous and logged in accounts. And there has been edit warring between other users too. And the user seems adamant to not take the conversation through the talk page and simply go and add it back.

Since the page had been stable up to that point, I would request you to restore the page to that stable version. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The releases prior to the 'revision on 18th October' made the article advertising in nature and hid several information from even the primary sources to be completely uncritical. Vandalism has been done to the controversy section regardless of it's non-third-party sources. As such, misinformation such as the person having two wives being corrected by giving references from official websites and biographies which clearly depict the person having a minimum of 4 named wives.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 15:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a single user here seems to be adamant to add this content without any other editor supporting the same. Requesting support from wiki admins here for a stable version.The website he mentions as official has a contact reference as https://www.srisrithakuranukulchandra.com/index.php/contact which is a single individual, whose opinions cannot be trusted blindly. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If primary sources like this are labelled unauthentic, for allegedly being from an individual, then all the other sources cited by the article also can't be trusted, resulting the whole article to be unverifiable as almost each book and website cited in this article as source is written by by such individuals, not any scholarly book or website, or any verified journalist.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 16:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather whatever the versions wrote by Atreyeemaiti , those are very valid and has all the relevant references ,the current contents are very defamatory and objective . appreciate if you could please revert to the write up of Atreyeemaiti.

--Gs giri2705 (talk) 16:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

CambridgeBayWeather This all started from 18 Oct 2018 when an anonymous user as below started putting comments like "6 wives", "controversy" etc without providing authentic references. (cur | prev) 09:01, 18 October 2018 2405:205:212c:5948:e0d1:10cd:6f88:3ee7 (talk) . . (24,971 bytes) (-210) . . (Deleted dubious unsourced claims from the followers and added controversy section to keep Wikipedia's neutrality.) (Tags: Visual edit, possible vandalism)

After this incident there has been multiple edits ever since and the user Charbak ☀ looks like promoting the same biased content by the anonymous user mentioned above. He has been reverting back changes by all who are trying to edit after hijacking the original content before 18th Oct, 2018. Moreover, Charbak ☀ he lodged a complaint about me on someone else's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sandippradhan86#Suspected_sockpuppets) saying that I'm him. Now he as deleted my reference from the complaint, but I have the email where he did that. I can provide if needed. I request the article need to be reverted back to the stable version before all this started and Charbak ☀ needs to be investigated properly on the basis of his content and references and why is he tryng to block others saying them to be someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLoneCrusader (talk • contribs) 17:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC) WikiLoneCrusader (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I protected the page from Acnandi and Jim1138 due to their edit warring. This was so that a discussion could be held to figure it out. I see that neither of them have commented here yet. I protected and can't/won't make a decision on which version is correct. I suggest that you start some form of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 03:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather and Acnandi: I apologize, I now see that the sources are blogs. Being wp:self-published, I withdraw my objection to its removal and I argue for its removal. Such content needs to be sourced by wp:RS, not blogs. Jim1138 (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In that case CambridgeBayWeather, please can you help us restore the version without the controversial personal blog referenced content?Atreyeemaiti (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather, Jim1138 All the references in the "Controversy" section are from personal blogs or Google Docs. The user Charbaka is trying to put unreliable sources. I believe Wikipedia is a place of reliable sources. Hence, I request wiki admin(s) to validate this "Controversy" section and remove the statements that belong to personal blogs/Google Docs.--TheLoanWalker (talk) 14:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Works written by the person himself have been cited.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 15:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Charbak ☀ His own works doesn't refer what you are intending here in any way. Your references in no way redirect to any of the false claims you are making here. I highly doubt your understanding of the language and content therefore. Refrain misleading everyone here. Controversy section can stay with real controversy if any not your fanatically created ones by you. Can you at least site a single leading news paper reference from the period when Sree Sree Thakur lived (1889-1969) with this controversies you are referring from your own blog and of your friends? CambridgeBayWeather (Personal attack removed) I would really appreciate if you look into this matter. 73.62.226.73 (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

What I am intending here in any way, well, I am intending here nothing but quotations from his own works, to present them in nonjudgmental way, as you can see in the controversy section, it's not criticism or allegation, but only the fact that the ideology was criticized by someone, not necessarily that they are, but only to show the allegations themselves, not to judge it's true or not. So to be clear, I only provided references from his own works, along with proper citation. If you wish, more such references will be provided. If you dispute the original works hosted on internet archive or even his own follower organizations to be fake, or being mistranslated, then we should invoke any admin having the language of the works; ie. Bengali, to peer review the sources neutrally through dispute resolution. Thank you.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 13:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute

@CambridgeBayWeather and Jim1138: On the allegation of citing self published blogs as references in the controversy section, I have re-cited each statement of the section with primary references from the person's(Anukulchandra) own written works, hosted on archive.org. If doubted, please invoke an Bengali admin to peer review the sources in their original language through Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to verify the information.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡, you are misleading the facts and figures with personal blogs and websites. This is wasting everyone's time to propagate your agenda without valid references. I say this because you are again trying here to involve someone and asking everyone to visit the personal blogs you are referring. Looks like to me an advertising of unreliable sources. Please refrain from doing so and let the article grow as per wikipedia standards. The family of Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra still lives on this earth and is a very big organization in India and across the globe as I know. The authentic site of Satsang that is being headquartered in Deoghar, India is " http://satsang.org.in/ " and in USA is "https://satsangamerica.org/". Also you can go to the websites and find the contacts of centers around the globe. If you have time, I can understand with all the efforts you are putting here is you do, please write an email,call on their call center number, if possible visit their local Centers. I'm pretty sure they will have one by the place you leave since they have more than 5000 centers only in India. I have verified at least this by myself before coming here. Primary sources should be authenticated websites, not someone hosting a book in a local language in a paid server, and providing references there of. WikiLoneCrusader (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Works written by the person himself have been cited — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charbaka (talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather and Jim1138: Among all the citations given in the "Controversy" section of the article from no. [28] to [38], three of them are blogs ([28], [29], [30]), the rest of them are quoted from texts written by Thakur himself. I have gone through all the blogs and the cited quotations in this section of the article.

Each of the blogs is written by self-proclaimed revolutionary thinkers of Bangladesh and West Bengal. These bloggers are neither historians nor known journalists and mostly unknown as bloggers. Now, let's focus on what is in the blog references. In all of the blogs, the bloggers have used quotations of Thakur and have played around the actual meaning and have misinterpreted it. Their ability of reasoning and deduction is surprisingly poor and instead of providing actual proof-based concrete arguments, either they have made a mockery of the quotes ( article by Biplab Pal: "Hindu Sariyatbadi") or they have presented their utterly misunderstood ideas about the quotations in a sarcastic manner ( blogs of Sourav Das, Mahakal Vairav).

If a certain person who does not have a good understanding of Special Theory of Relativity edits the Wiki page on the Special Theory of Relativity, then it becomes a problem for everyone. A very similar situation is going around here. It is very inappropriate to brand a person as misogynist, racist on the basis of blogs where his ideas are misexplained and misunderstood by unknown self-proclaimed "rationalists".

The same kind of problems is with the quotations from [31] to [38]. They are being presented completely out of context and misexplained, misused. If Wikipedia admins seek proper explanations of these quotations I will be happy to provide them. The man Anukulchandra himself has explained most of them and those explanations can be found in books written by his admirers. It is just not right to make comments without understanding the actual purpose and context of the quotations.

In the entire article, the only authentic reference presented is [1] and that too is used absurdly to claim that Anukulchandra belonged to Radhasoami Organisation. It would be convenient if the editor Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ could provide the page number of the "scholarly article" where it actually mentions that Anukulchandra belonged to this organisation and Satsang is a branch of that. Mere citing a journal doesn't prove anything. As far as I could see neither in the preview nor in the contents of the article by Mark Juergensmeyer it ever mentions the name of Anukulchandra. I would be glad to be corrected if I am wrong.

page numbe: 157 footnote-39 of that book. Thanks• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 01:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

These are clearly very weak references to support such serious accusations on a well-known, revered personality. I will be very glad if any Wikipedia admin verifies the references and the way they are being presented in the article.

Keeping the Wikipedia article as it is now, lowers the standard of Wikipedia. It needs to be edited and verified by knowledgeable people with proper citations and any usage of quotations from the man should be presented with its actual meaning.

Thus, I will earnestly request Wikipedia admins to look up this matter and do the needful.

 Acnandi ☀    ⋠talk⋡ 12:45, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 October 2018

Requesting wiki admins for the following two edits:

1) Controversy Section:

Current version:
His writings and ideology have been vehemently criticized for being utterly misogynistic[28], casteist, unscientific and superstitious by Bengali rationalists[29] [30].He promoted several controversial ideas such as polygamy[31][32], Eugenics[33] and unscientific world views[34][29]. Being a staunch casteist supremacist [33], he promoted the Nazi ideology of Racial purity[34] through Eugenics. In-spite of polygamy being illegal in India[35], he married 6 times himself and promoted polygamy among his followers[32]. He protested against women empowerment by saying "Employed women are those who destroy the society and family[36][30]". He made misogynist remarks against female children taking education with the male children[37][28] and preached against gender equality[28]. He suggested his female devotees that women should never complain to their abusive husbands[38] in any condition and should accept that her ultimate goal is to submit herself to Husbands will.[31]

Proposed version:
Requesting this to be removed since

1. The references provided are regional which are not verifiable and also seem like personal blogs of people whose authenticity cannot be validated.
2. The claims made are pretty strong and all references fall into the category (1).
3. The talk conversation on the same section does not seem to be going forward. Questions asked about why the references are regional, or why self-published work is being used as references are not being answered rationally. The references do not actually mention the claims he is making. For eg. the reference given for promotion of polygamy does not even have the word "polygamy" mentioned anywhere.
4. The page was stable without any controversies before this section came in.
5. A single user is continuously adamantly trying to add this content back and forth.

The sources cited are now most from Anukulchandra's own works. Peer review should be invoked to verify them but definitely they aren't self published.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 00:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Replied in the comments section with details on the above comment. Please avoid making the same comments throughout the talk page, and request you to reply pointedly to the specific questions asked per section rationally.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

2) Introduction section
Current content: "was a self-proclaimed godman who promoted the Radha Soami organization[1], also known as Satsang, in Bengal [2][3][4]"

Proposed change

"popularly known as Sree Sree Thakur, Bengali: শ্রীশ্রীঠাকুর) to his disciples, was a friend, philosopher and guide, and founder of Satsang, a socio-cultural institution".

Reasons:

1. The references for this proposed version (which also was present before all the edit warring started since Oct 18) were of the nature of articles from well respected newspapers in India - eg. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/guwahati/Politicians-turn-devotees-at-Satsang-Vihar-event/articleshow/30418116.cms and also the national tourism website of the state where the ashram of the individual is.
2. The current version talks about Radh Soami organization and the reference links to the text "Anukul Thakar Chand established Pabna Devghar Satsang in what is now Bangladesh" - This reference has few issues a) The name definitely does not match the personality in question b) Even if it refers to the same person, it nowhere mentions that the individual promoted the Radha Soami organization. c) neither does it say that the personality in question was a self-proclaimed godman. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The author clearly states in page 157 footnote-39 that Anukulchandra originally split up from the main Radhasoami organization to establish his own branch of Satsang.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments on the proposed edits

Regarding the proposed edit, there has been discussion in the stable version section of this talk page. There Jim1138 has agreed that he is withdrawing his opposition to the repeated removal of the controversial section, which triggered the edit protection in the first place. Hence, I am requesting the wiki admin to please take note and help restore the wiki page to a stable version.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Also I believe most editors on this talk page have had a similar opinion about this controversial section. Atreyeemaiti (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It is to be noted, how these supposed wiki-editors deliberately arguing to remove even the primary sources in the controversy section, such as Anukulchandra's own works specifically referenced, to distort this article to use it as a promotional advertisement to their organization, which clearly doesn't refect their intention to be impartial position.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 00:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Charbak ☀, I think you are missing the point here. I see the works you have linked as Anukulchandra's own works are:

• Ref 36 - https://archive.org/details/ghoshnafar_gmail/page/n0 - What is the verifiability this is actually written by the individual? This is a website and with somebody's personal email address. And this is also linking to text which has no relation to the very strong claim "Employed women are those who destroy the society and family"
• Ref 31 - http://www.shrishrithakuranukulchandra.com/books/Narir-Niti.doc - This is a word doc published on a website whose contact detail does not point to the ashram established by Anukulchandra - rather some other single non-verifiable individual. You can surely understand, why this would not qualify as WP:RS
• Ref 34 - https://archive.org/details/ghoshnafar_gmail_20171112_1443/page/n9 - Again similar complaints as above - Also I do happen to understand Bengali and this page does not mention a word about the Nazi philosophy you are mentioning.

I really request you to be unbiased yourself and provide good quality WP:RS references. I am sure you will be able to judge yourself that the above mentioned do not qualify for that.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Atreyeemaiti, I hope you understand what is a citation and verification of citation. It's not important whoever uploaded the document. The citations are referenced to original document and can be verified. If you dispute any citation from any book, you simply can't dispute them of being self published, rather invoke a peer review by a Bengali admin to check the sources cited, whether they are verified are not. This is because every single other citations in the rest of the article, except only one scholarly work which was also deliberately erased, depends upon same supposedly original books, and organizations run by such individuals which are not verifiable according to your logic. So if you remove the controversy section by accusing the citations to be fake, the most of the article, if not whole, leaving a few lines that he was a religious leader who run an organization, would be unverifiable and would be liable to be removed. Judge every other citation in your logic, I hope you understand this. And racial purity through eugenics does happen to be a Nazi ideology, which is found in almost every website or works of this person. Thank you.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 16:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, please avoid attacks via comments of this kind - "how these supposed wiki-editors deliberately arguing to remove even the primary sources in the controversy section, such as Anukulchandra's own works specifically referenced, to distort this article to use it as a promotional advertisement to their organization, which clearly doesn't refect their intention to be impartial position". Rational responses would really be appreciated. Everybody, including you, is trying to make the page a good referenced valuable document.Atreyeemaiti (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather, Charbak ☀, I wanted to share my views about the phrase "he promoted the Nazi ideology of 'Racial purity' through 'Eugenics'". As we can see, there are two contents here: 1. Nazi ideology of Racial Purity through Eugenics, 2. his ideology of Racial Purity through Eugenics ( if he actually had one). According to your edit, they are quite same. I shall like to take a look on both of these.

1. "Nazi Ideology of Racial Purity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Racial_theories I hope Wikipedia in this context is a worthy reference. The Nazi Racial theory begins with the belief that "Aryan Race is the master race in the World- a race that was superior to all other races." It viewed Aryans as being in racial conflict with a mixed race people, the Jews, whom the Nazis identified as a dangerous enemy of the Aryans. It also viewed a number of other peoples as dangerous to the well-being of the Aryan race. In order to preserve the perceived racial purity of the Aryan race, a set of race laws was introduced in 1935 which came to be known as the Nuremberg Laws. At first these laws only prevented sexual relations and marriages between Germans and Jews, but they were later extended to the "Gypsies, Negroes, and their bastard offspring", who were described by the Nazis as people of "alien blood". So we can see that, the Nazi Ideology of Racial Purity is built upon the belief that their race is superior than all other races and the measures they took to establish that was, first to restrict the marriages( so that there is no mixture of Aryan Blood), secondly to exterminate the mixed blood Jews, Romani, Slavs under the law of racial defilement.

2.Now the "Thakur's ideology of racial purity".

I am yet to see a single quotation of Thakurji where he actually mentions that his race, caste is superior than others. If any of you discover one, I will be very interested to know.

Thakurji's ideology of marriage, eugenics is basically a restatement of the ideology found in Hindu Scripture "ManuSmriti". He did not have any such ideas which one can call "Racial Purity", rather he recommended "Anuloma Vibaha" as does the Hindu Scriptures.

For a reference:

"The aim is to retain the original homologous hereditary trait. That is why, our scriptures praise and recommend so much in favour of marriages in similar clan and varna. If a Bipra marries a Bipra, he will have the progeny of same varna. Then, if he has a Kshatriya wife, the progeny will have a happy blending of Bipra instinct and Kshatriya temperament. Like this, through different combinations, new specific varieties will evolve which will make nation richer and more varied. But in such cases, it will be a good practice to write the identity of the hypergamous progeny in bracket while mentioning the father’s title. If the father is Chattopadhyay and mother Baishya, the child will write Chattopadhyay (Ambostha). Otherwise, there could be a chaos in matters related to marriage and food hygiene (Alo. Pra.Vol.12: 27-5-48)." This is a quotation of Thakur and can be found in the book (mentioned in the braces) Alochona Prasange, Volume. 12, Dated: 27-05-1948( date of the quotation).

So this shows that he did not promote racial purity at all, he rather praised diversity and taught to embrace it following the teachings of Ancient Hindu Scriptures.

There is a drastic difference between his way of promoting his ideology and the Nazi way of promoting their ideology.

His ideology of marriage and eugenics can be summed up in his own words: " If good progeny do not increase, then there will be a scarcity of cultivated cultured souls. The inferior will outnumber and will be the cause of ruin to nation. If we desire eminent progeny, then it is essential to solemnize the savarna and anuloma marriages for deserving males. Then only the nation will be enlivened again.’ (Alo. Pra.Vol.21: 11-1-53)"

"The aim behind the system was to push for higher genetic enrichment through all possible ways (Alo. Pra.Vol.12: 9-7-48)."

I think these establishes the central idea of his "Racial theory" was based upon the commandments from Ancient Scriptures. Reference: http://www.pragyata.com/mag/philosophy-of-hindu-marriage-521#disqus_thread, https://iskcondesiretree.com/profiles/blogs/types-of-marriages.

Anukulchandra said:"Do never die, nor cause death; but resist death to death." The same person is being accused of promoting Nazi Ideology by Wiki-author.

So, I hope you can see that the phrase "he promoted the Nazi ideology of 'Racial purity' through 'Eugenics'" is very absurd. Therefore, I will request the Wiki admins to remove the phrase from the article.Thank you. Acnandi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.78.244.96 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Acnandi, thank you for your clarification about Anukulchandra's views on marriage and eugenics. As you have stated that he supported Anuloma marriage as found in Manusmriti, for good progeny, this idea is indeed controversial. The whole notion that castes or a socio-religious determination of one's profession is determined by birth is itself discriminatory. Such interpretations of several passages from Manusmriti itself have been severely criticized for their support of this kind of casteist discrimination and supremacy though distinguishing a so-called uppercast from a lower cast upon the basis of birth. And this approach to eugenics having efforts to avoid miscegenation or the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, for having so-called pure or good progeny, had indeed found its most extensive implementation in Nazi Germany(Nazi eugenics), through racial hygiene. Still it needs to be nonjudgmental to present the article to wp:NPOV, so to it being open to readers upon their own conclusions. And this reference to eugenics, being a mere allegation, not a conclusion(only presenting the allegation, not saying it's true or not), if you think the word Nazi in it is defamatory, it may be removed, but not the reference to promotion of racial purity, as there are reader who are no supporters of caste system.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 09:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Charbaka, so you are agreeing that his works doesn't promote Nazi Ideology and rather is a restatement and explanations from social customs mentioned in "Manusmriti".

I agree that the social customs in Manusmriti are criticized by many but the point of my previous argument was that the phrase "he promoted Nazi Ideology of Racial Purity" is a baseless allegation.

The statement "he promoted Nazi Ideology" ,in my opinion, is false. The acceptance of Nazi Ideology of Racial Purity/Supremacy in Germany/Europe was much later than the formation of Satsang in Pabna and Anukulchandra's teachings began even before formation of Satsang. If you insist that there is a connection between his teachings and Nazi Ideology, you need to provide appropriate references where it at least mentions his admiration or support for Nazis or their Racial theories of Aryan supremacy. What your reference and argument implies is like this: His ideology of marriage includes the notion of caste system and the Nazi ideology of Racial purity depends upon nationality ( somewhat analogue of caste) and from these hypotheses you are concluding that his ideology is a version of Nazi ideology. This is very poor and incorrect analysis.

Now, let's talk about this: "And this reference to eugenics, being a mere allegation, not a conclusion(only presenting the allegation, not saying it's true or not), if you think the word Nazi in it is defamatory, it may be removed, but not the reference to promotion of racial purity, as there are reader who are no supporters of caste system."

First point: "the word Nazi...": Keeping a "mere allegation" created by an individual on a Wikipedia page is misleading and incorrect. If you have references where known rationalists , scholars, free-thinkers, historians, Journalists has alleged Anukulchandra's Ideology of marriage to be connected to Nazi Ideology of Racial Purity then it might be appropriate to present this as a "mere allegation" in the controversy section. You have not provided any such reference. There actually needs to be a controversy which you can refer to.CambridgeBayWeatherThus, this phrase needs to be removed from the controversy section.

Second point: " but not the reference to promotion of Racial purity...": First of all, that reference is a 355 page book. Please kindly provide the page number of the content what actually appears to be a reference. Secondly, I argue that his ideology of marriage needs to be thoroughly discussed in a separate section on " Marriage and Eugenics" in the article and there his ideology and explanation needs to be presented in an appropriate manner. I hope that will serve the purpose of making people aware of his "controversial" theory of marriage! Thank You.Acnandi ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:Acnandi I am agree to have the line you suggested be rephrased so that it doesn't conclude his ideology to be Nazi, for the sake of wp:NPOV, but the reference to the allegation shouldn't be removed, can be cited from the book Aloukik Noy, Loukik, Natural, not Supernatural, page 243 by prominent Bengali rationalist Mr.Prabir Ghosh. This reference from Anushruti , own work of Anukulchandra, page 91, which states about a নিম্ন্বংশ'lower caste' woman married to উচ্চবংশ higher/superior caste man producing children of high quality, as to support to this claim. You may use machine translation to verify it. Thank you.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 14:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Dear CambridgeBayWeather and Jim1138:The content provided such as "was a self-proclaimed godman" those are derogatory and motivated propaganda absolutely. you can find authentic and realistic information on many these thousand's genuine websites, few of them are below . Many leading National News papers have published articles towards the the life and growth for common man and talks about Sree Sree Thakur's ideology and philosophy, will be able provide if needed. Admin a kind request to validate the authenticity and accuracy of the published contents and please revert back to the original content which were present since last few years and to be locked.if more info references needed i will be able to provide so. http://www.satsang.org.in/ https://www.satsangvihardelhi.org/ http://www.satsangamerica.org http://www.satsanghyderabad.org/ https://www.satsangkarnataka.org.in/ https://satsangpune.wordpress.com/satsang/ http://www.satsangindia.com https://www.srisrithakuranukulchandra.com/ http://satsangviharald.in.net/allahabad/a3.html http://wikimapia.org/1491377/Satsang-Vihar-Chakan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satsang_Vihar_Purusottampur https://satsang-vihar-gorakhpur-hindu-temple.business.site/ https://shreeshreethakur.wordpress.com/about/ https://www.speakingtree.in/article/talking-about-avatars-and-sri-sri-thakur-anukul-chandra Admin you can also refer these Many Monthly Jounral and Magazines Sites. http://www.ligate.net/ http://urjana.net/ http://www.alochana.com/ http://www.satwati.com/ http://www.satwati.com/ Gs giri2705 (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gs giri2705: Please see wp:selfpublish, wp:primary, and wp:NOTRS. Blogs, wikis, (including this Wikipedia) and content which is not under editorial oversight are generally not considered wp:reliable sources. Please cite specific sources. People would prefer, and probably would not, go through website to find pertinent content. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: After going through some of the references, I find many to be wp:primary and/or wp:selfpublished. Going through the wp:edit history, no version that I viewed appears to meet Wikipedia wp:NPOV and other policy and/or standards. Versions seem to overly praise or condemn Chakravarty. Jim1138 (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

 Administrator note I have disabled the request as it seems discussion is continuing on this. Please reactivate only when consensus for a specific change is clear. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of the contents

Hello Winged Blades of Godric, please do not delete the contents of this page without any reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoanWalker (talk • contribs) 15:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Check out the edit summaries over these edits in light of WP:RS and WP:PROMO. Also, see WP:3RR. ∯WBG^converse 15:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello @ Winged Blades of Godric I looked into the edit summary, neither it has any explanation nor it has any reliable sources why the contents need to be removed. See wp:reliable sources (RS) and wp:NOTRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheLoanWalker (talk contribs) 02:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that English is your first language and it's probably lending to the overall WP:CIR issues. The onus of inclusion is on you and you need to prove how non-independent sources published by Satsang (or heavily affiliated authors) pass WP:RS. You are looking at a block here, for textbook disruption and promo-spamming. ∯WBG^converse 10:18, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To re-clarify the rationale behind each of my edits:-

1:-

OCLC holds a single book (the one removed) from Deojyoti Publications at LOC, a library of record. Google does not provide any information whatsoever, about the publication house. Neither has the author been published by any reliable press nor his academic credentials can be ascertained.

Ditto about Tapoban Prakashan and their authors, except that it is even more fringe. OCLC has neat nothing about them. WPUBLINET shows a few works, all of which are restricted to Anukul Thakur.

Satsang Publishing House is their in-house press and de-facto unreliable, given that Anukul is a controversial religious figure. Also, we can't ascertain aspects of WP:DUE from (effectively) primary sources.

A random blog is textbook unreliable.

2:-

Primary sources are not reliable, given that Anukul is a controversial religious figure. Also, we can't ascertain aspects of WP:DUE from primary sources.

Whatever I said up-above about Tapoban Prakashan applies to Alpha Pub. House. The author (Rebati) has a PhD. from NYU but sadly, got embroiled in issues of integrity.

3:-

Whatever I said up above about Satsang Publishing House, Tapoban Prakashan and Alpha Pub. House.

Speaking Tree is a blog.

Hari Ballabh's work is an in-house publication. My previous comments apply.

4:-

Ray Hauserman is intricately linked with Satsang and has no academic credentials. Not an independent source. Whatever I said up-above about Tapoban Prakashan applies to Ligate Pub. I need some time to evaluate Ocean in a Tea-cup, since it has been published by a reputed publisher.

5 and 7:-

Removal of stuff, sourced to previously removed sources or equivalently poor sources (Satsang website et al) or not at all. Per WP:V, primarily.

6:-

Sources don't cover the subject, even tangentially.

∯WBG^converse 12:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

There has been no response whatsoever, 'despite explicit acknowledgement of this message. I have (thus) restored my version. ∯WBG^converse 05:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric, I went through all the discussions above. It looks like people with their personal opinions and ideological inclinations have been editing and removing the content. I believe Wikipedia is an information based platform. It should continue to be like that irrespective of personal likes and dislikes. As long as the references are independent, reliable and verifiable, there should not be any issue. Thakur Anukulchandra is a prominent Indian religious figure of India. There must be a proper article on him with reliable sources and references. Few points I want to make-

About his personal life- This information can't be based on folklore and personal opinions. This information can only be get from official sources of the organization and reliable biographies. The official information provided by the organization, in this case Satsang, on his life is reliable because they take responsibility of the information shared, of course except their emotions about him. Just because, Wikipedia shares information I think.

About the reliability of the organization's in-house publishing house publications, I think for any religious organization and such personalities, the primary sources will always be from the organization itself and people having the direct interaction with them. Those include the devotees, visitors etc. The respective organization, if registered with the govt. of the country has the sole right to keep the original manuscripts and is always subject to legal and intellectual scrutiny. They can publish their works anywhere as per the publication rules of the state. As long as the work is original and free of plagiarism, no publication house has any issue publishing anything, even if the content is absurd or controversial. As long as the publication house has a legal publishing licence, it's free to publish any original work. It has the same rights and responsibility as any popular publishing house. Does any popular publishing house claim the authenticity and/or acceptability of any content they publish, unless it it a news media publication? It doesn't even require any academic or intellectual credential to publish any original work. The Satsang Publishing house is an Indian Govt. registered organization [5] listed in the UNESCO website.[6]

However, to publish any critical work of the original content, one must have academic and intellectual credentials and has to refer the original work. Only after a successful critical analysis and comparative study by credible scholars, the original work can be termed as controversial or may be related to any similar work. But, in any case the original work is authentic by itself, at least in terms of personal views and freedom of speech. It is up to the critic or reader whether to accept it or reject it. So, the original work must be put forward to public scrutiny with any authentic critical work if available.

If Wikipedia tries to discredit any legal publishing house, just because it's not popular or belong to any organization, then they can't publish any original work belong to any religious sect or community, because most of the original works belong to them only and primarily based on personal views and claims only. All religious organizations, including the Churches, Islamic institutes, Hindu organizations and other sects fall into this category. For example, what are the authenticity of even the Bible, the Quran, the Gita or any other major religious literature? All the authentic critical work available are based on the so-called unauthentic original works, which is absurd by any means in this context.

Take the example of the articles on Ramakrishna or Swami Vivekananda, most of the information available are from the original works published in the Ramakrishna Mission publication house by the disciples and members. Every critical study, other literature, articles are just secondary works based on either these works or the interaction with the disciples and the personalities. We can always term those as views on views. Because, on religious studies one can't authenticate anything, unless it is purely related to science.

The way is to just share any original work without biased mindset, positive or negative. All religious literature will have an emotional aspect intrinsic to it. We just have to get the information from it except the emotional part.

It doesn't mean Wikipedia or any other information based platform should publish anything on just anybody. The matter in hand is about a person who is a prominent religious leader of India, with about a seventy years old organization and tens of millions of followers and devotees, thousands of branches worldwide. Everyone has the right to know about his life, his messages and his views on various issues. It will keep them informed and alert from any sinister ploy. Even if any scholarly critical or comparative work is not available, his original views must be put forward to public review and scrutiny. It'll also encourage credible scholars to have proper critical study on the matter.

Just to show themselves impartial and critical, the editors should not use any personal blog or any other sources as reference which doesn't come under legal scrutiny. Because, if the particular organization will take legal action for any misinformation shared on Wikipedia, they can't be just held responsible. Critical work always require academic and intellectual credentials to study thoroughly the matter in hand from all aspects, and not just put few messages/paragraphs/clips from here and there to criticize/abuse a larger personality. Thakur Anukulchandra has given tens of thousands of verses/messages on various aspects. How can somebody without any scholarly credential name him or tag him to something just by reading few of his messages out of context. There are several PhD theses available online on the life and teachings of him, from National/State Universities of India and abroad, along with research papers in international journals. Why can't those be referred to write the article?

The biasness of the editors on this topic is astounding. They don't even agree to put the title of the article as per the name everybody knows him. He is known to the mass as Thakur Anukulchandra. What is the harm putting the title the same way? Why else does Wikipedia address a Gadadhar Chattopadhyay as Ramakrishna or a Narendranath Dutta as Swami Vivekananda or even a Mary Teresa Bojaxhiu as Mother Teresa?

So, I think a simple biography of the religious leader is just to put his life, ideological views, teachings and organizational works from official and verifiable sources. So, it's time the blockade on the editing of the page is lifted and is re-written with verifiable sources. The disputed and unscholarly sources must be removed.

Thanks. Bishupriyaparam (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The content removed from this article for reasons mentioned above, ie. for advertising the individual and his organization, referenced from either self-promoting or unverifiable sources, clearly violated the encyclopedic standards of Wikipedia. You haven't remotely provided any good reason to support your claim of retaining those materials removed for the former reasons, instead have written stuff in an even more advertising tone in favor of keeping those promotional material about this person. If you believe pages of other religious persons you've mentioned contain same promotional materials, please raise the issue on the consecutive talk pages of those entries and help cleaning them. But it'd be complete arrogance to use such comparison as an excuse for adding promotional content in this or any other articles.• Charbak ☀   ^⋠talk⋡ 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thakur Anukul Chandra

He's the living ideal who loves us all and says us to respect all religions Hritidipan sarmah (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's. Though the most popular among spiritual leaders is our love lord Sri Sri thakur Anukulchandra his biography, tales and talks are least found in internet. Satsang is the least advertising organization in contemporary world. Chiranjibi the sunrise (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2023

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 discussion.

---

Anukulchandra Chakravarty → Thakur Anukulchandra – The page "Anukulchandra Chakravarty" should be renamed after as "Thakur Anukulchandra". Anukulchandra Chakravarty popularly known as Thakur Anukulchandra and I can assure you that it doesn't violate wikipedia rule because I've already managed the title in Bangla wikipedia from "Anukulchandra Chakravarty" to "Thakur Anukulchandra" with proper logic and information. Kindly change the title, it will be helpful to find this article. Thanks.Preetidipto.21 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources that this is the WP:COMMONNAME? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 21:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thakur Anukulchandra is the commonly used name in Indian subcontinent. We know encyclopedias are the sources that may be helpful in deciding what names are most frequently used. So, I am mentioning the article link from Banglapedia (national encyclopedia of Bangladesh)

Ref: Banglapedia Preetidipto.21 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I am dubious of the reliability of that source; it looks user-generated, and
2. One source is not evidence that the proposed name is the most common.
3. Even if it is the most widely used in the Indian subcontinent, other names could be used elsewhere.

Would other editors like to comment? Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 17:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

For your kind attention, I would like to say Banglapedia is so far the most comprehensive reference work on Bangladesh.

Moreover I am mentioning some several news link where Anukulchandra Chakravarty claimed as Thakur Anukulchandra.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

Yes, other names could be used elsewhere but that cannot be a common name for this article. By the above mentioned referencs I can ensure you that. Preetidipto.21 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@Edward-Woodrow: Website en.banglapedia.org is the Asiatic Society of Bangladesh's web version of their ten volume print encyclopedia, Banglapedia. After trying numerous content management systems over the years, they settled on MediaWiki. Unlike Wikipedia, however, it is not an open wiki - you and I can't edit it. Banglapedia follows the old-fashioned encyclopedia model of the chief editor (Sirajul Islam) inviting a subject matter expert to write each article. Authors of important topics are often preeminent in their fields and have written multiple books on the subject. See [11]. After passing through their editorial process, articles are uploaded to their website. Banglapedia is a reliable source, but with regard to naming it is not authoritative, it is only one point of reference. The Asiatic Society of Bangladesh does not appear to follow a rule like Wikipedia's WP:COMMONNAME. They also include honorifics, ranks, and sometimes job titles in their article titles, which Wikipedia does not. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Atreyeemaiti, Grayfell, MKar, Wbm1058, and Winged Blades of Godric: --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

This page has been moved five times:

• 15 February 2016: Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra → Thakur Anukulchandra, "Honorifics and professional titles should not be used for article titles"
• 15 February 2016: Thakur Anukulchandra → Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra, Talk:Anukulchandra Chakravarty/Archive 1#Article name
• 20 February 2017: Sree Sree Thakur Anukulchandra → Anukulchandra Chakravarty, "Correct name (wiki format)"
• 8 July 2019: Anukulchandra Chakravarty → Anukulchandra Thakur, "COMMONNAME; almost all vernacular sources or reliable stuff like <https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2017/IJRSS_JULY2017/IJMRA-11799.pdf> and like."
• 23 August 2019 Anukulchandra Thakur history merged into Anukulchandra Chakravarty

My understanding of past discussions is that "Sree Sree" is an honorific and "Thakur" is an honorific title (at least for Anukulchandra). WP:TITLESINTITLES guides us not to use honorifics or titles in the titles of biographical articles, except if they have become an inseparable part of the name by which the subject is clearly best known (as in Mother Teresa). So does Anukulchandra most commonly appear with "Sree Sree Thakur", "Thakur", or nothing in front of it, as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, unbiased (not written by devotees), reliable, English-language sources? How his name appears on bn.wikipedia.org is not relevant. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Relist comment. Don't see a consensus above that the sources provided by the nom are sufficient to establish that "Thakur", as an honorific, is associated with "Anukulchandra" to become the subject's common name and justify a title of "Thakur Anukulchandra" for this article. This proposal appears to need more reliable sources in order to achieve consensus. Is this a "Mother Theresa" situation? or not? P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 07:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.