Talk:Kalika Prasad Bhattacharya

Age and/or approximate year of birth conflict

Hi. I need to point out that the year of birth ("c.1969") does not match with the age at death reported in this source used in the article. In fact, most English language references are claiming his age at death as "56". Moreover, I can find no references at all to support that approximation of "c.1969" as a birth year. Could we leave the template I have placed in the article there until this is firmly resolved through sourcing? Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Birth year "c.1969" has now been replaced by "1971" in the infobox, but removed from the bio completely - why? If there is a real doubt and no reference to show an age or birth year, there should be NO guess at his birth year at all in the article. Both the obituary sources used in this article say he was 56!! Not 46. Provide hard evidence that he was not born circa 1960-1961 (to match the 56 year age at death) within 48 hours, or I will feel obliged to come back and insert information which closer matches the sources used presently. I won't expect to be reverted either, as this talk section now represents a consensus-building exercise, and discussion needs to take place and real sources need to be supplied before further edits are made. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:19, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out the edits which restore the integrity of the article under Wikipedia guidelines regarding accuracy and truthfulness when referring to the sources in use in the article (that's personally all I want to see here). Please only change age details or "circa" birth years when you can supply a reliable reference to prove these, with the age and year(s) of birth obviously not showing a mis-match! Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 13:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would now love to hear from those IP editors who keep changing the age and birth year(s) - feel free to put forward your arguments as to why the content you introduced should be allowed, given that you have still not provided inline references to back up your changes. My standpoint as regards being reverted will stand until the sourcing matter is resolved. If there are further instances, a report for disruptive editing may go forward, highlighting the repeated introduction of unsourced material into this article. Thanks once again, and I hope to hear from you in this section. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Loads of different IP editors are visiting the main page to change either the birthdate or the age or both - and no-one seems to be making the same changes (which, if they were, would make me think the well-supported information in there now was wrong). Without some kind of dialogue by one or all of you, this matter won't be resolved - unless you can put in sources to PROVE what you claim, against the sources being used presently. As I've said, I'd really like to get some kind of discussion going, even if just to find out how and where you found out the info you claim should be in there. Get some references though. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again ..... the sources currently in use claim clearly that he was aged 56. Which gives him approx. birth years of 1960 or 1961. It is not enough to go into the article and change these well-referenced facts without adding/replacing sources of your own to PROVE your changes. Yet again. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 19:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some account holders are now getting involved, it seems. Unfortunately, although one account holder did expand the article very well factually, they failed, like a second account holder, to provide that all-important piece of proof regarding his age and/or date of birth. As so many available sources state his age at 56, there MUST be hard proof using a reliable source that he was born in a year other than 1960 or 1961. My reversions are not an edit war, by the way. The rules of Wikipedia state the need for a good reference to avoid an untruth being told, and I am patrolling this article to ensure that rule is followed. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: latest edits. You cannot insert 'hearsay' into the article. The references remain unchanged, and the claimed age of the deceased therefore remains 56 years old, so born 1960-1961. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comment: I have now found a reliable source to back up the birth year claim of "1970" (not an exact date), which would make him 47 years old at death. It quotes a cousin as vouching for this birth year, so I have legitimately changed the article to reflect this, using a proper reference. I hope now that this article can be settled and I can move on to other things. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 06:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only singer... he is a music researcher and social worker.

Not only singer and folk-music resource-person, ... he is a music researcher and social worker. For last few years he was working in Zee bangla television's singing competition Sa-Re-Ga-Ma-Pa where he explained the history, etymologies and significances of various folk songs; discussed about various rare-forms of musical instruments; and also worked on folk song preservation from villages and searching out rural performers and talents. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then the "music researcher" claim should be added to the article, complete with an inline reference to show the truth of this. (The social work aspect, with the greatest respect to all social workers, is not a primary interest connected to his main notability in the music world, whereas self-research into his singing and into music in general would be.) Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 07:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]