Talk:Raja Ram Mohan Roy

message: I believe his name was Rama Mohana Roy in the original Bengali. There's Bengali writing on this page which I cannot read. Should that be given as the transliteration from the Bengali? Imc 08:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: Please note that parts of the present text, especially the section "Christian and Company period (1795 - 1828)", are tendentious, containing disputed facts and near-abusive language, such as "fabricate(d) a spurious religious work". This can perhaps be attributed to the fact that some of the hatred he encountered on account of his fight against Hindu orthodoxy and criticism of Christian Trinitarianism, survives to this day. I feel that the article should be blocked or flagged appropriately until corrective edits are received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altquixote (talk • contribs) 
:The "disputed" fact that Rammohan Roy had a hand in fabricating the MNT (a work widely acknowledged to be fabricated) is not OR. Altquixote can read John Duncan Derrett on the subject, and Hugh Urban's 1995 follow up paper. Annette46 (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment moved from main page 

message: A quotation has been added to the article recently.
:"It should be noted, however, that the women who benefited from Roy's reforms were largely those of the upper castes. Being a Brahman himself, Ram Mohan Roy naturally sought improvement for the women of his own stature. Moreover, women of the orthodox Brahmans, more so than women of the lower castes, experienced such practices as child marriage and prevention of widow remarriage. Thus, while Roy worked to improve the lives of elite women, the lower castes comprising eighty percent of the population saw little change from his reforms."
:
It is my view that this is POV pushing citing a less scholarly (and possibly uninformed) source. It is trite that child marriage and sati cuts across all castes and the author's thesis that Roy only fought for Brahmin  women's issues is too frivolous to be considered seriously. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 09:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. A Google search for the author Diane M. Jones reveals nothing notable. The article is not specifically about Roy and has only 1 google cite in an unrelated context of China. The scholarly source fails to show any basis why Roy "naturally" favoured women of his own stature. The article also fails to show any basis for opining that orthodox Brahmin women experienced child marriage and prevention of widow marriage to a higher degree than lower caste women. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Diane Jones of Univ.Wisconsin seems to be an athletics coach with many "significant" publications. http://facstaff.uww.edu/jonesd/Presentations.htm Since RMR never set foot in the USofA her observations on RMR are 3rd party opinions, not RS and certainly not sufficently scholarly for Wikipedia. That RMR was also caused to oppose sati because of the burning of Jagmohoan's widow is not at issue, the faulty / dubious logic of Ms Jones' sweeping (and incidentally ignorant) statements that sati, child remarriage, widow remarriage etc are/were primarily upper caste societals is. Ms Jone's (especially when out of context) is not a sufficiently scholarly source for inclusion in an encyclopedia, do you have any contemporary sources to RMR to cite for such kind of negative observations? Speculative weasel terms such as "would have been" cannot be used as justification - RMR either DID favour or DID NOT favour women of his own strata - please cite your sources accordingly. 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

text: You may also be interested in "scholarly" articles like this http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brahmoconferenceorg/message/6  116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ram Mohan and Women

message: How are the actions of Ram Mohan in relation to the British indigo planters irrelevant to his role as a social reformer?  To me they seem to be related.HIS33809beki (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read JC Ghosh's collected letters of RMR first to get the complete picture on Roy's views on (and 'benami' ownership of) indigo plantations. It would also be useful if you read up about his son Dwarkanath Tagore who also owned many indigo plantations (including some of Roy's). 116.68.247.11 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ram Mohan and Social Reform

message: Could somebody please tell me the correct dates of Ram Mohan. Wikipedia states 1774-1833. All other sources give 1772-1833?  Incognitus scriptor (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ram Mohan Dates (1774-1833 or 1772-1833)?

message: This section is very poorly written- and most of it refers to other people such as Carey and Woodroffe, which by the way is misspelt. Section needs substantial editing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajibAditya (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early political and religious career (1792–1820) 

message: Why is there a [sic] whenever Hindu is mentioned in direct quotations? Epeeist smudge (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hindu [sic] Why? 

message: The title of the article shoud be Rammohun Roy. In every letters he have written, he signed as Rammohun Roy (not Ram Mohan Roy). Please vide The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy edited by Dr. Kalidas Nag and Debajyoti Burman, published from Sadharan Brahmo Samaj, 211, Bidhan Sarani, Kolkata-6. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rammohun Roy 

message: Just curious. The article claims that a street has been named in memory of Ram Mohan Roy. The claim was made on 31 July 2015, but google maps still can't find the place, and there's no mention of it on any British government site. Might culturalindia.net have been a bit premature, or just perhaps wrong? Batternut (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The CulturalIndia.net made the street naming claim in or before 2008, when it was first archived (here). If the street has been around for 8 years, it would be locatable. The AA route planner finds 3 similar road names in India, but none in the UK. So I shall remove this claim from the article. Batternut (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is Raja Rammohan Way then? 

message: He started atmiya sabha in 1814 ,I was consider as precursor of brahmo samaj Khaled hussain (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raja raam mohan Roy earlier works 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ram Mohan Roy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://www.nabble.com/Origins-of-Brahmoism---Part-2-p17304202.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150206222214/http://www.arnosvale.org.uk/friends-of-arnos-vale-history/662-raja-rammohun-roy to http://www.arnosvale.org.uk/friends-of-arnos-vale-history/662-raja-rammohun-roy
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071214181903/http://www.calcuttaweb.com/people/rammohan.shtml to http://www.calcuttaweb.com/people/rammohan.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The name is wrong it should be "Raja Rammohun Roy" 2409:4064:99F:DABB:0:0:1A26:68A1 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide reliable sources for this, and get consensus for the change. Many of the sources we use have the name as in the article title. Meters (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of the content 

message: they are more prevelant, even today, in other religions Mundhra.navneet (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  child marriage and polygamy are not only "Hindu custom" 

message: In the, "Christianity and the early rule of the East India Company (1795–1828)" section, please add this:  2405:204:5207:5634:A403:B0D:D6EE:A76E (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , , , , , , please do the needful.-115.99.148.174 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your proposed info fails WP:EXCEPTIONAL. CharlesWain (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2022 

message: DOne by Calcutta Public School Kalikapur Promitdhar2007 (talk) 14:36, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lemonaka (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022 

message: Before posting anything on this talk page, please read Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Relevantly speaking, these talk pages are not forums.
I am posting this due to multiple unproductive edits to this talk page for the past two years. (This edit was placed here, as of this post, exactly two years ago tomorrow.) The edit history here shows that I and other editors have come here to perform multiple reversions of unconstructive contributions; speaking for myself, this article arguably has the most talk page activity on my watchlist, and much of it is either trivial and unconstructive, or reversions of such.
And simply posting here something along the lines of "Ram Mohan Roy was an Indian reformer" (paraphrased quote), or that "he was a good guy" or a "very bad man" (either one), does not help improve coverage relevant to him or his coinciding fields of study. Please only post here with the intention of improving, expanding, opining on, questioning, or commenting upon the coverage and information displayed that is relevant to Roy and/or this article; and to do so in a civil fashion.
There is not frequent enough activity for me to want to seek this option right now, but if this behavior keeps up, I reserve the right to inquire about protecting this page. I would hate to bring protection measures to a talk page, since these pages are meant to accept opinions of any interested member of the public; but this talk page and its history is simply being improperly used by too many IPs or new users, and it is a long-term issue. Please respect this talk page, and only post here if you have respect for both the information/content regarding Roy's life and world contributions (which is different and distinct from respecting him personally, or thinking positively of him; neither of which I am demanding out of anyone), and of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know why is it, but there are many Indian IPs doing these on an incredible number of pages. At this point probably more than half of my Twinkle usage is dedicated to reverting them. I remember reporting them to ANI at some point, but got tired because the reports were generally ignored, and the few (range) blocks didn't really help either. There will always be an unrelated IP that does the same thing even when the other one is blocked. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:21, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reminder to anyone viewing and contributing to this talk page 

message: We have a source quoted attributing authorship to the mahanirvanatantra by Ram Mohan Roy. The source in question is Derrett's Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law. The link is to volume one of the series. What source this seems to be wanting to reference is volume 2 of his Essays in Classical and Modern Hindu Law which holds the article, "A juridical fabrication of early British India: the Mahanirvana-Tantra" from the Zeitschrift fur vergleichende Rechtwissenschaft in 1968. However, in that text on page 142 Derrett says that the authorship of the text by Ramohan Roy is "highly improbable" (see also ff 13 where he surmises Roy would not have had the patience to write the sanskrit follies that he "frequently ridiculed"). There is nothing in this text said about Carey or Vidyavagish. The only sources I see connecting all these only refer back to the Wikipedia or the Derrett article, which says the authorship of the tantra cannot be determined. We should strike this sentence from the page until we can get better sourcing for these claims--which are possibly erroneous. 74.59.26.131 (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant article is here: https://books.google.ca/books?id=yH8eAAAAIAAJ&q=maha+nirvana+tantra#v=snippet&q=maha%20nirvana%20tantra&f=false 74.59.26.131 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I've looked into this a bit more and found a text by Hugh Urban of all people (he has his hand in every pie!), who explores in-depth whether or not this text was or could be penned by Rammohan Roy. Urban notes two sources that suggest a connection between Roy and the text: Bhattacarya's History of the Sakta Religion (155) and Chakravarti's The Tantras (353). Reading Urban's text gets the feel that Roy did not construct the text himself, though he did use it extensively a an ambivalent source for his reformist agenda. Urban concludes: "It is probable that we will never know the true author and date of the Mahanirvana Tantra "(77). I still think we need to pull this down until it is confirmed. 96.22.174.61 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation on the Mahanirvanatantra 

message: I removed British india from the infobox and only added the Bengal Presidency. The presidencies were separate at time as most of India was snot colonized yet. The position Governor-General of India did not exist until 1834 SKAG123 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  British India