Talk:Bhabanipur Shaktipith

Proposed merge from Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division

I propose that Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division be merged into Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth because the former's content is duplicative (WP:REDUNDANTFORK).

The subject of "Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division" is nominally the union council (a very small geographic division, something like a precinct in the United States), but all of its text is about the sacred site. The subject of "Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth" is explicitly the sacred site, which is why I think it should be the surviving article.

I disagree. It itself should qualified an article. Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth is a sacred site situated in Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ibrahim Husain Meraj: Understood. It is certainly possible to draw that distinction. In connection with that, although it makes sense to remove the infobox settlement template from Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth, the sacred site is still a geographical feature with a physical location. Instead of deleting the infobox, wouldn't it be better to substitute a different geographical infobox template, perhaps historic site?

As a practical matter, if Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division is to only be about the settlement, then after removing all the text in it about the sacred site we would be left with a two line stub: "Bhabanipur (Bengali: ভবানীপুর) is a union under Sherpur Upazila in Bogra of Rajshahi Division, Bangladesh. Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth is located there." And it's unlikely that there would ever be additional notable information to add about the settlement. That's why I think Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division should be merged out of existence.Worldbruce (talk) 09:44, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Worldbruce that Bhabanipur, Rajshahi Division should be merged into Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth as the contents are duplicative and the later is a sacred/historic site of greater importance. Therefore Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth should be the surviving article. There should also be a geographical infobox template in the article. Babu bogra (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Acts of vandalism and removal of factual information should be stopped immediately

This article contains/contained some sensitive and important facts about Bhabanipur Temple and its associative issues and events with reliable and verified references. Recently numerous edits are/were being repeatedly made to omit those facts/information from this article which is nothing but an attempt to suppress the facts and can be termed as an act of vandalism. These edits need vigorous reviewing and rechecking by impartial wikipedians and administrators as soon as possible and it is also being proposed to have an open discussion in this page before removing/omitting factual information. Thank you. Babu bogra (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides on 02/10/2004 during the regime of BNP-Jaamat coalition, a former publicity and publication editor of the committee, journalist Dipankar Chakrobarty was murdered, but his murderers have not yet been brought to justice. How can be this line is related to this article? Use of words like regime of BNP-Jaamat coalition regime of the Caretaker Government Combined Forces (Bangladesh Army) illegally destroyed make the edit controversial. Wiki article should be impartial and factually related to topic.Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Besides on 02/10/2004 during the regime of BNP-Jaamat coalition, a former publicity and publication editor of the committee, journalist Dipankar Chakrobarty was murdered, but his murderers have not yet been brought to justice." is very much an impartial fact that is related to the topic of the article because Journalist Dipankar Chakrobarty was involved in the Bhabanipur Temple management and he was vocal for the protection of the Temple and an active protester against illegal occupation of about 500 acres of Debottor (Deity's) properties belonging to Bhabanipur Temple at Bogra. The following cited source "http://hrcbmdfw.org/blogs/rajshahi_division_news/archive/2006/05/07/353.aspx" establishes/established the above-mentioned impartial fact. This reference URL was also put in the article paragraph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhabanipur_Shaktipeeth?#Temple_management that was removed to suppress the fact. More pertinent sources establishing the facts are cited here: http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=17343&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,

      http://archive.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/justice-denied-for-eight-years/, 
      http://archive.thedailystar.net/2005/12/20/d5122001096.htm,
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Bangladesh.

Is a temple or institution independent of the people involved in the management of it or is it such that the people involved in the management of a temple or institution are not related to it? And therefore mention of their (or Dipankar's in this context) killing is not publishable in a wiki article?

How does the mention of the regime during which an event or rather mishap or crime took place make the edit controversial? An explanation of the "Use of words like regime of BNP-Jaamat coalition regime of the Caretaker Government Combined Forces (Bangladesh Army) illegally destroyed make the edit controversial" would have been more helpful. Is it then forbidden to mention in wiki article the regime during which a crime is committed in order to make it free from controversialism? Babu bogra (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for engaging in a discussion about how to improve this Wikipedia article. I think we can all agree that it is verifiable that Dipankar Chakrobarty, a journalist, was murdered on 2 October 2004. Where there is no consensus is on two issues. 1) Is the murder of Chakrobarty something that should be included in this particular article? 2) If so, how can the information be phrased from a neutral point of view?

Let us first try to reach consensus on question number one. None of the sources cited above (The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities of Dallas/Fort Worth, UNESCO, and the two Daily Star articles) say that Chakrobarty was a member of the Bhabanipur Temple Renovation, Development and Management Committee, "a former publicity and publication editor of the committee," or in any way involved in the Bhabanipur Temple management.

If he was, it is not clear from the sources that his murder was either the result of any connection he had with the temple or that it had any significant or demonstrable effect on the temple or its management. Only one source, The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities of Dallas/Fort Worth, mentions the temple at all. It states that "He [Chakrobarty] was vocal for protection of this Temple [Bhabanipur] since long" and "The investigating officer suspects that Dipankar was murdered due to protest against illegal occupation of 500 acres of Debottor (Deity's) properties belonging to Bhabanipur Temple at Bogra." However, the same source goes on to say that the "motive of killing has yet to be disclosed" and it's a "mystery whether Dipankar was killed due to publication of news or not." Taken as a whole it agrees with the other sources that who committed the murder and why is unknown.

The editorial control and reputation for fact-checking of The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities of Dallas/Fort Worth is unclear. It is not a academic and peer-reviewed publication, textbook, or established, high-quality, mainstream, news organization. It is a questionable source. Does any reliable source state that investigators seriously consider a connection to the temple as a line of inquiry in the murder, or that the murder was definitely connected to the temple, or that the murder had any significant or demonstrable effect on the temple or its management?Worldbruce (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I highly appreciate your interest in helping reach a consensus on the Bhabanipur Shaktipeeth issues.

As far as phrasing the information from a neutral point of view is concerned, I would say that the edit "Besides on 02/10/2004 during the regime of BNP-Jaamat coalition, a former publicity and publication editor of the committee, journalist Dipankar Chakrobarty was murdered, but his murderers have not yet been brought to justice." only objectively stated the facts and it is free from any bias. Various sources support it.

The fact that Dipankar Chakrobarty was a former publicity and publication editor of the committee is known from the website of the Bhabanipur Temple Renovation, Development and Management Committee [http://bhabanipur.atspace.com.] and thereby was involved in the management of the Temple's activities.

I don't agree at all that The Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities of Dallas/Fort Worth is a questionable source. It is a Human Rights and humanitarian organization and an NGO in Special Consultative Status with UN. [http://www.hrcbmdfw.org/storages/NGO-status-HRCBM.pdf] And its information should be considered as reliable.

More references are cited from renowned organizations like "Committee to Protect Journalists" (giving a good clue) and "Reporters Without Borders" below: [http://cpj.org/killed/2004/diponkar-chakrabarty.php] : Quote:

"It [murder] may have been connected to his work as a Hindu activist and a land dispute at a local temple."

[http://en.rsf.org/bangladesh-dipankar-chakrabarty-03-10-2004,12164.html]

The Daily Star which is a well-known, established, mainstream and mostly circulated English newspaper publication in Bangladesh stated on its edition of October 5, 2004 [http://archive.thedailystar.net/2004/10/05/d41005100374.htm] that

"Although police failed to make any headway, a reliable source said that a number of local influential people, who have been occupying a vast area of land of Sherpur Rani Bhabani Temple [Bhabanipur Temple], might have a hand in the murder. Dipankar was an advisor to the temple."

This source gives a good clue regarding the connection between the motive, the unlawful killing and perpetrators even if numerous investigators mysteriously and questionably failed to do so in nine years http://archive.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/fresh-probe-into-journo-dipankar-killing-demanded/. Quotation from this source published on October 3, 2013 says:

"Nine investigation officers, assigned at different times, could not unearth clues to the murder and prove the involvement of the arrested seven in the murder."

This may obviously raise serious questions about the intention of the related law enforcing agencies.

Also as a matter of fact, I think that there should be a clear consensus as to when an activist or worker (be it publicity and publication editor or adviser) for any temple, institution or organization is unlawfully killed, there is naturally a detrimental impact on that temple, institution or organization and its activities. Is there any disagreement on it? Thank you. Babu bogra (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to the additional sources brought out during this discussion I think we can all agree that it is verifiable that Dipankar Chakrobarty was involved in temple-related matters at some time. The temple's website describes him as "former publicity and publication editor of the committee." The temple website is a self-published source, so it must be treated with caution, but I think it's reasonable to believe it on this point. It isn't clear from the way it's worded whether he held that position at the time of his murder or whether he had held it at some time in the (perhaps distant) past.

I think we can also all agree that it is verifiable that who committed Chakrobarty's murder and why is unknown. This is the consensus of all sources mentioned so far during this discussion except for the temple website. The temple website contradicts all other sources by stating unequivocally that Chakrobary "was assassinated on 02/10/2004 during the regime of the BNP-Jaamat coalition government for being active and vocal for the retrieval of about 500 acres of Debottor properties belonging to Ma Bhabani and for the protection of Bhabanipur Temple". The temple website is self-published, and parroting this claim in the Wikipedia article fails all five of the requirements for using a self-published source as a source about themselves (see WP:SELFSOURCE).

Although who committed the murder and why is unknown, some sources do conjecture that it might be related to the land dispute the temple is involved in. The UNESCO source, the Reporters without Borders source, the 20 December 2005 Daily Star article, and the 6 August 2013 Daily Star article do not mention this theory of the crime at all. The Committee to Protect Journalists and the 5 October 2004 Daily Star article do mention the theory, attributing it to "others" and "a reliable source" respectively. In my judgment they are reporting a rumor. Rumors and gossip sell newspapers and can get a base of support riled up, but they are of limited encyclopedic value. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along rumors (see WP:NEWSORG).

If in the end the consensus is that mentioning the murder and stating the temple-land-dispute theory of the murder is appropriate on this page, then I will bow to the consensus, but to maintain a neutral point of view and not give one theory undue weight, we would need to mention every other theory advanced in a reliable source, such as that the murder was committed by "left-wing extremist groups," that he "was killed in retaliation for his journalistic work," or "for writing about organized crime." Worldbruce (talk) 07:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

If we are unable to reach consensus yet about whether Dipankar Chakrobarty's murder belongs in this article, then it might be useful to step back and examine the Temple management section as a whole. This is the only Bangladeshi Shakti Peetha or Temple article to have such a section. The flow and wording never made sense to me, perhaps because of regional differences in English, or imperfect translation, or lack of context.

If the Committee supervised temple activities from 1991 up until 2010, then who supervises temple activites now? Or was the distinction meant to be that they successfully supervised the temple until 2010, but now unsuccessfully supervise it? If so, what happened in 2010 to change things? How can their supervision be described as successful given the problems that the rest of the paragraph describes?

Do we think the land dispute should be mentioned here? The very nature of a dispute is that there is another view of the matter. If Wikipedia covers it, then neutral point of view demands that both sides be presented, not just "misuse", "illegal", and "miscreants". Worldbruce (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The very nature of a dispute is also that both or all the parties involved in the dispute cannot be right. Now can the parties, people or authority involved in the unlawful acts like killing Dipankar Chakraborty or occupying temple properties or destroying the guest house express their views of the matters or present their versions in Wikipedia? If Wikipedia's neutral point of view demands the presentation of the "view of the matter" of both (or all) sides involved in a dispute, then can it be asked whether Wikipedia treats equally the different/opposing "view of the matter" of both (or all) sides involved in the same dispute? Thank you. Babu bogra (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)