Talk:Prarthana Samaj

India 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in April 2012.

Religion: New religious movements Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by New religious movements work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

{{section link|History of Maharashtra|Social Reform}}

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Recent edits by me

I have recently made some (friendly) edits to this article. Another editor has described these as "intellectual hooliganism" etc. on the Talk:Brahmo Samaj page. If I have offended anyone please discuss it here. Yvantanguy (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the place to discuss an offending edit, which follows:

The source of the previous statement is not sufficiently reliable. This appears to refer to the reference: B. N. Luniya, "Rajendra Suri: A Reformer and Revivalist". Standing alone, that is an evaluation -- "not sufficiently reliable" -- an unreferenced opinion, which itself belongs on the discussion page. Standing alone, that is POV. You have not said what is unreliable about the reference, what would be sufficiently reliable, or in what respects it has strengths and weaknesses or is correct and incorrect. What would you prefer?

The article has not had a great focus on theological questions, which seem to be of less concern than their impetus for social reform. Your edits sharpen the Prarthana Samaj's views on the Vedas, twice, where they had been carefully nuanced. Again, you need to cite supportive literature for such edits, of course being careful to separate the historical from any current issues.Fconaway (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fconaway. Firstly I am not certain if you have viewed the "Rajendra Suri" reference, I say this because the link itself is dubious and does not resolve properly (suspiciously disguised). The actual URL is http://www.ibiblio.org/jainism/database/ARTICLE/rajendra.doc. From this it is clear that it is an article on Jainism and an alleged Jain reformer, and cannot be described by any stretch as a "scholarly reference" for Brahmo Samaj or Prarthana Samaj - especially as the article is POV and cites no sources for itself. Secondly if I limit myself here to the last stable edit by Euralys, there is a clear bias (ignorance) concerning the Brahmo Samaj with dubious information and POV statements (unsupported by citation) such as the following "The Brahmo Samaj was based on restoring certain religious concepts of ancient Vedic texts.", "Like the Brahmo Samaj of Bengal, the Prarnatha Samaj represented an Indian response to European liberalism, including the ideals of rational or theistic belief and social reform." The only citation for these dubious statements was the "Luniya" article (if we can call it even that) whose journal of publication also we do not find anywhere on the page. Thirdly, you have pointed out that my edits have "sharpened" the Prarthana Samaj's views on Vedas. I respectfully disagree, my edit is in fact the traditional position of the Prarthana Samaj (which unlike Brahmoism is monolithic having headquarters at Mumbai, and the Bhandarkar Research Institute at Pune.). Fourthly, my "justification" for highlighting in bold that "call for action", was to draw the attention of Prarthana Samajis and their well-wishers to their abysmal neglect of this article. Fifthly, I shall endeavor to cite the required references, being careful to separate the history from current issues such as "hindutva" etc. Yvantanguy (talk) 08:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reform movement

Social reformer movement 223.228.17.125 (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]