Talk:Bhagwanji

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 November 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

India: Uttar Pradesh Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Mukherjee commission conclusion

Can this sentence be discussed here instead of being edit-warred over? As it currently stands, it is about Bose and not the article's subject Bhagwanji; also a good secondary source would be preferable over the primary report being used as a reference. Abecedare (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support use of secondary sources and good catch on the fact that it is talking about Bose and not the subject of this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, nowhere in Mukherjee's report it is mentioned that Bhagwanji was Bose or not. One of the points that came for the commission's consideration was whether Bose lived elsewhere at any later time (post 1945). He had to consider the popular beliefs that he was in Russia, he was killed at the Red Fort, and he was in Faizabad. That's when he checked about Bhagwanji. Mukherjee stated in the report that in the absence of any clinching evidence, the question whether Bhagwanji was Bose "need not be answered". Against the earlier mentioned point, he concluded in Chapter V of the report that in the absence of clinching evidence, a positive answer cannot be given. That is the context. In case you want to read more, check pages 5 and 123 of the original report. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article about Bhagwanji. The report itself makes no claims about the subject of the article, Bhagwanji. We cannot be pulling content from one context to make a claim about another. WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN and WP:COATRACK all come into play to say that we should not be giving undue coverage in a manner that makes an implication that is not explicitly made in the source, particularly when we a delving into a primary source to get it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debate in high court

Please note that we should not make original research into the content of the article. One of the sources say there was a debate in the assembly after the government failed to probe the identity of Bhagwanji, User:TheRedPenOfDoom suggested that it was not about the subject of the artcile (which is wrong) and that it was internal politics (which is original research). A debate happens in an assembly not due to internal politics. It is a democratic way to discuss issues. I don't think there is any harm in retaining that sentence and the source. It indicates that the government did not act upon the court order to probe the identity of Bhagwanji and that it created a discussion in the assembly. Since this article is about someone suspected to be Bose, this information shows the relevance of the matter even in 2013. In that context, this information looks significant. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot insert original research into the article. However, there is nothing in the source article about the assembly actions that indicates anything but this was simply an internal politic move and nothing about the actual subject of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual subject of this article is Bhagwanji, for god's sake! He was someone suspected to be Bose. That is why the court ordered the UP government to probe. The government did not do that and it led to a debate. How come this is not relevant and just internal politics? -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition was looking for anything to cause a row and this was the level they decided to pull. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is your thinking, which is original research. The fact is that the government did not constitute the commission as directed by the high court. So, the opposition party requested for a debate. It was approved by the speaker. It is a democratic process. Debates take place between people of different parties in parliament or assembly acorss the world. For that matter, how can one think it is "the level someone decided to pull?" -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting lost in the weeds here. The facts as I read them are:

on Jan 31 the HC ordered the UP govt to set up a commission within 3 month
on March 15 the opposition raised a fuss in the state assembly asking why the government hadn't yet acted on the order.
We don't know (yet) whether the government did or did not set up the commission within the ordered time-period (WP:OR I assume it did, but don't really know either way)

The first point above is clearly relevant to the article, since it directly relates to the "identity" of the subject. The second point is basically trivia that happens to be sourceable; while the third point would be good to know (in which case we can simply modify the existing sentence as "The UP government appointed a commission, following a Allahabad High Court order, to...").

But while I think the second point is not worth including, neither do I think it is worth edit-warring over since either ways it is no big deal. Unfortunately the page being locked, prevents us from making trivial improvements to the article, for example the sentence "Following Bhagwanji's death in 1985..." clearly belongs near the start of the 2nd para rather than in the third, etc.

On the plus side, we can take advantage of this break to let apparent tempers cool, regain some perspective, and perhaps even locate some additional sources! Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The government has not formed a panel yet. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? If so, it may be worth including once the page is unlocked after discussing here. Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)then the grouse to create attention was merely a grouse to get attention. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare: I read in paper shortly after that debate in the UP assembly that the panel was not constituted. Could not find any web references though. -- XrieJetInfo (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But that was eight months back, and well within the three-month time period allotted by HC (even assuming no extension requests were filed!). So even if a reference is found from that period, it would not be useful unless it categorically says that the govt has set-up a commission or has refused to do so. Abecedare (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page Protected

The edit war going on in the main article is not acceptable behavior. Therefore, this article has been protected for 2 days while you all hammer your issues out. If the warring continues after the expiration of the protection, I will extend the protection and blocks will likely be in order. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 19:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was at my request after I warned 2 editors that they'd passed 3RR. I'd hate to see anyone blocked but if anyone exceeds 3RR (or goes to 3RR regularly) they probably will get blocked, those are the rules. Dougweller (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ভগবানজী

ভগবানজী (গুমনামী বাবা) ভগবানজি, যিনি গুমনামি বাবা (অর্থাৎ 'নাম ছাড়া বাবা') নামেও পরিচিত ছিলেন, তিনি ছিলেন একজন তপস্বী যিনি তাঁর জীবনের প্রায় শেষ ত্রিশ বছর উত্তর ভারতের একটি রাজ্য উত্তর প্রদেশের বিভিন্ন অংশে বসবাস করেছিলেন। তার সবচেয়ে উল্লেখযোগ্য বৈশিষ্ট্য ছিল ছদ্মবেশে থাকার প্রতি তার অবিরাম প্রতিশ্রুতি। শুধুমাত্র কিছু লোকেরই তাকে ব্যক্তিগতভাবে দেখার সুযোগ হয়েছিল। বেশিরভাগ দর্শককে তার সাথে পর্দা দিয়ে আলাদা করে কথা বলতে হয়েছিল, তার মুখ লুকিয়ে রেখেছিল।

উত্তর প্রদেশে থাকার সময়, তিনি অবাঞ্ছিত মনোযোগ এড়াতে একাধিকবার তার বাসস্থান পরিবর্তন করেছিলেন।

তার প্রথম উপস্থিতি 1950-এর দশকের মাঝামাঝি লখনউ শহরে, যেখানে তাকে প্রথম দেখা হয়েছিল বলে জানা যায়। তার সম্পর্কে বেশ কিছু গুজব চলছে, কারণ তার আসল পরিচয় এখনও নিশ্চিত হওয়া যায়নি।

ভগবানজি 16 সেপ্টেম্বর, 1985 সালে অযোধ্যায় মারা যান। পাল্টা দাবি রয়েছে যে তার দাহ মঞ্চস্থ করা হয়েছে যাতে তাকে অন্য গোপন গন্তব্যে যাওয়ার জন্য একটি পথের ব্যবস্থা করা যায়। 223.191.34.60 (talk) 07:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Improper Link

In the subheading, 'Correspondence and meeting with famous people' the link added to 'Atul Sen' redirects to a page where it's clearly written he died in 1930s, but in this article, it is written he met Bhagwanji in 1960s. There's a contradiction and both the people are not same with the same name. Please remove the link and add a proper appropriate link. Phymestry (talk) 11:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]