Talk:Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Vaishnavism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Krishnaism (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Swaminarayan (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).

Pramukh Swami[edit]

Added Pramukh Swami Maharaj name in introduction paragraph, as he is identified with this faith today. wildT (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


I have added some infomation regarding the background it should stay here because its all facts and relevent links to this sect.

I have added a disputed tag to this article, because it is not written from a neutral point of view. I will try to re-work the content into an form that is acceptable for the wikipedia. --Goethean 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It's beyond me. Also, there is an editor who apparently disles this group and has both added obscurely disparaging remarks about this group, and has repeatedly removed references to it from another article, Swaminarayan. -Willmcw 02:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Changed. --goethean 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I fail to see how a "conference paper" can be accepted as fact. It is extremely biased to use one person's opinion on a matter and represent them as fact. Presenting information in this manner does not promote neutrality, it promotes misinformation and propoganda.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 October 2005.

The article doesn't accept the paper as fact. The article merely mentions that the paper exists. — goethean 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The paper itself is not relevant to the faith, yet you present it as part of the article. I have read other various articles about on religion(ie Islam, Christianity, etc.) on wikipedia and in these articles they do not present any "conference papers" or political ties inside the article themselves. In the article on Christianity I do not see links to papers on thier ties to the Republican Party. On articles on Islam I do not see paper or link on thier ties to extremist militant groups. I therefore conclude that political ties whether true or not should not be represented in the article to offer a neutral opinion. How come this article is bieng held as an exception and places information in the Article based solely on a single "paper"? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2005.

That's a false analogy, because BAPS does not equal Hinduism. Nor, for that matter is it a seperate world religion on the scale of Islam or Christianity. And in the article on Evangelicalism, one does find a discussion of its politics. — goethean 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from this paper which I cannot find on the internet and therefore cannot reference, I did not find any well documentated evidence of the claims made by this person and her paper. So I belive what you wrote in this Article is based on your opinion of what BAPS represents and what information you would like to include and exclude.

Please assume good faith. From the article history, it looks like the link stopped working, and someone removed it. I will attempt to find bibliographic data for the paper. — goethean 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect, you had ample time to find the source material related to the point of view expressed in the "BAPS in Gujurat" section. In the interest of fairness, since the source is missing and no longer available, the information should be removed.

Is there some reason that we doubt the truthfulness of the summary that we have in the article? If you are the same editor as user: then you've already reviewed it before. We are we deleting it? -Will Beback 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not that I doubt the truthfulness. There are several questions here that are unanswered and despite any resolution to those questions, the article is bieng presented as factual. Some things I feel should be addressed is: Is it appropriate to make a statement or a summary based on a single article without verifying the information with another source? Is it appropriate to present material in which the source can not be referenced by others to review? If the article is availble for review, which it has not been for quite some times, does the article properly justify its conclusions and properly cite the credible sources for those justifications? So until these questions can be addressed I dont feel we should present the material/summary(in "BAPS in Gujurat") in the BAPS article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

So, then, is your point that information which is presented as factual but doesn't have multiple listed references should be deleted? That's about half of the article. Including:
  • BAPS is a branch of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect with more than 1,000,000 followers worldwide and a greater presence outside South Asia than any other Hindu group.
  • According to his followers, Pramukh Swami Maharaj represents the essence of Hinduism, leading an austere life of complete celibacy, without personal wealth or comfort. His compassion for humanity, universal wisdom and striking simplicity have touched many world religious and national leaders as well as ordinary devotees alike.
  • Part of BAPS' success lies in its approach, which is characteristic of other monotheistic religions — namely their centralization and huge organizational strength, their emphasis on community, their notions of salvation through belief in Sahajanand Swami Maharaj (Lord Swaminarayan) as the supreme Lord, adherence to strict doctrine, and even trace elements of proselytization. Many mainstream Hindus find themselves attracted to this and start identifying with BAPS. Although some see only minor theological implications in such a conversion, others see the doctrinal differences as quite distinct. The fact that BAPS devotees worship Swaminayaran Bhagwan as higher than Sri Ram or Sri Krishna is quite alarming to most traditional Hindus.
I'm all for removing unsourced info. But don't set the bar too high or there won't be any article. Will Beback 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your second bullet as well as parts of the third bullet above can be cross-referenced through the oragization's website. I would agree with removing the rest of the material above. I would like to point out that the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs. Im not sure if this classifies as a false analogy but for example the Pope would have more authority about whats factual about how the Catholic church operates and the church's beliefs than a college student writing a thesis paper. In any case, Its not possible to cross-reference any of the material in the "BAPS in Gujurat", so I feel that should also be removed. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

...the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs.
That's an absurd idea. Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations, including Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, Theosophy and gurus such as Sathya Sai Baba. These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki. — goethean 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is certainly your opinion. Also I never said any organization has authority over a Wikipedia article. The material presented on a wikipedia article should be neutral. But I think it would be improper just to throw information into an article which cannot be cross-referenced or be verified in anyway in order to create a false sense of neutrality. And in order to be fair, I did say that we should also remove some of the content referenced in the bullets by Will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

  • This really isn't the place for critiques, I don't see critiques of the roman catholic church in the article on catholocism, it would be better if it was placed in the article on hindu nationalism

Reply: There are many article on Roman Catholicsm, including several entire articles of criticism, such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, even a whole category, Category:Anti-Catholicism. While it perhaps should also be mentioned in Hindu nationalism, that doesn't mean it should be remoevd from here. -Will Beback 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Why are these websites:

constantly being removed without comment? Is there something objectionable about them? -Will Beback 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Those sites are most likely bieng removed by some member of the sect. I have been told that those sites do not offer any relevant material about BAPS and are not acknowledged on the BAPS website. Those sites merely reference BAPS and are not associated with the organization.

Thanks for the coutesy of a reply. Whoever you are in contact with, please tell them that when editing Wikipedia we have certain policies, one of which is explaining one's edits, especially deletions. Being "acknowledged on the BAPS website" is not a criteria for inclusion here. Your other points are more relevant. -Will Beback 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Beback, that you right. Being on the BAPS website is not a valid reason but let me give you the real reason. These links are being removed by the members of sect because both links refer to groups that are not a part of BAPS. The Mahant Swami page is created by a group of people who believe a monk of BAPS, Mahant Swami, to be their guru and spiritual head. As the BAPS website and the BAPS wikipedia article both state, BAPS has only one guru and spiritual leader - that is Pramukh Swami Maharaj. The Mahant Swami page is most relevant in an article about the Mahant Swami group but not fair representation under a BAPS article. The Kakaji link is also deleted because it refers to a group that was excommunicated from the BAPS in the 1960's and so again it is not right to put the link here because visitors would confuse the group with BAPS and the link does not clarify that point.


I added some links to other Wikipedia articles relating to BAPS (i.e: The article on Pramukh Swami Maharaj, and the article on the Neasden Temple). Hope I've put this comment in the right place!! Dylanpatel 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do Bapsy Babe alwasy try to consider them selfs as a part of the Swaminarayan Faith, they broke all connection with the original swaminarayan faith a long time ago and now are a splinter group please refrain from using the name Swaminarayan you are Akshar Puthsotham 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also while I am on the subject I think its only fair to tell you that the BAPS lost a court case against the Original Swaminarayan faith to use the Swaminarayan Name in any of their Mandirs and centres please obide by this and dont use it.

- The decision by the Gujarat State Court in the early mid 1900's you refer to was appealed against, and the ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court. If BAPS really were using the name 'Swaminarayan' illegaly, do you not think much more would be done about it given the status BAPS holds internationally?

Move to <full form of BAPS>[edit]

Shouldn't this be moved to Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (with a redirect from BAPS, of course), as per WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles ? --Kprateek88 09:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I think thats a good suggestion, my only question is whether or not BAPS is known to most people as Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Puruthottsam Swaminarayan Sanstha. WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles says "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)." Whilst members of BAPS would know what the acronym stands for, I'm quite certain that most others who know of BAPS do not know it as the full title. Saying that, it certainly wouldn't hurt to list BAPS under a page with the full title.

Suggested Edit[edit]

Please find below a suggested edit of this page. It removes all POVs I could see and expands other areas. Any suggestions? The layout is obviously not right, I removed as much formatting as possible so it would be easy to view here in 'Discussion' 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I dont see how this shlok clears up the issue. There are various shloks in the shikshapatri that followers of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi do not adhere to. Take shlok 136 for example:
"They shall never remain in a secluded place even with their mother, sisters, or daughters (who may be of young age), except in the strictest emergencies, and shall never give away their wives to anybody."
Can you tell me that each and every man who says he belongs to the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi has never been in a room alone with either his mother, sister, or daughter? Whilst I am not by anymeans questioning the authority of the Shikshapatri, I must point out that by your standards, the majority of people who call themselves Swaminarayan are actually excomunicated because they have not followed the above rules.
May I also point out shlokas 153 and 154:
"When facing natural disaster, famine, or harassment from enemies or rulers, which may result in loss of prestige, property, or life, my followers shall move away without hesitation and migrate to some other place where they can live in peace." and "My followers who are wise and discreet shall immediately leave that place even if it is their birthplace, the place of their livelihood, or an inherited estate."
It was because of these very shloks that Shastri Yagnapurushdas left Vadtal. So, infact, he was following the Shikshapatri by leaving.
Naturally you'll still edit the article. Somebody else with revert it. Somebody else will edit it. Somebody else will revert it. The issues Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi have with BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha are not going to be resolved on Wikipedia. I do hope everybody understands that. Dylanpatel 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't wish to enter into a debate here on Wikipedia. I will, however, say this: Your above argument is based entirely on the assumption that a) Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi followers all strive to follow the Shikshapatri and b) all followers of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha do not. Yes, your position as a follower of the Ahmedabad/Vadtal Gadi grants you the perogative to speak on behalf of your satsangis somewhat, but without being a BAPS follower there is no way whatsoever that you can claim BAPS followers do not strive to follow the Shikshapatri. Any comments to that effect are clearly biased. I could just as easily claim devotees of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi's are vimookh because they dont follow the commandmants of the Vachanamrut. That, however, would be a gross generalisation, and probably not true. Just as your comment was. For the record, the reason for not wanting to enter into a debate isn't because I 'know I can't win' or other such nonsense. It's simply because I dont believe this is the right place for such discussion. I don't wish to speak on behalf of a million BAPS followers. I just thought I'd clear that up before comments were made.
Dylanpatel 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan

BAPS is a sect of the Swaminarayan faith and it's the largest and fastest growing branch.

Translation of BAPS[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement about whether the current translation of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha is correct, or even necessary. I personally don't think it is needed, however if it is decided that it is, I don't feel the current translation is correct. I would translate it as the following:

The Akshar-Purushottam Swaminarayan Organisation of Bochasan, with 'Akshar-Purushottam' reffering to the name of the deities of the sect, and the name of the philosophy that the sect is based upon. Dylanpatel 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I DO think it should translated, otherwise, who knows what means? But otherwise you do have a point in your second paragraph and I'll make a change shortly and we can work it out. Tuncrypt 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question about the use of Swaminarayan in BAPS...does BAPS not stand for Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha. I am confused with the inclusion of Swaminarayan in the title. Could someone please address this. Also if there is a citation for this particular issue, please include in your reply.-- 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Sona

A quick look at the bottom of the BAPS homepage will show that the official name of the organisation is "Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha" I think BAPS decided 'BAPS' would be more memorable and reable than 'BSAPSS' (A common practice by organisations/companies etc) Dylanpatel 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I propose the following changes to this article in an attempt to restructure this article to Wikipedia standards.

  1. Expand the Religion & Spiritual section to provide claims for existence - combine Title section; possible rename to Philosophy?
  2. Create new article for BAPS Care International
  3. Remove redundancies in terms of links

Feedback? Moksha88 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Moksha88. Someone had organized the list of centers into a table, which looked much better, but it seems to be back to the lengthy list format again. You know how to organize it into three / four columns? wildT 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly but your help is greatly appreciated! Moksha88 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- the article, and you, are hopelessly slanted. The opposing POV in this paper should also be addressed: namely, that instead of "Promote harmony and peaceful coexistence among all communities through understanding and co-operation", BAPS has endorsed the Hindutva movement and all the slaughter that has implied, eg. the Ayodhya thing. Jpatokal 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the article link, Jpatokal. You might want to consider that BAPS *actively* promoted peace after the terrorist attack on their akshardham templ which killed 30+ people. Had they not done so, riots could have happened on a larger scale across the country. The article you mention looks like an academic one but reads hopelessly like a POV one. It would probably not qualify for being a Wikipedia artcle! Just one of the articles on this peaceful response is here. wildT 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Great. So please add the article's view, and then the opposing view from Tribune, and then both will be represented. Jpatokal 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandal edit[edit]

Have restored plain text from earlier version - after a vandal had removed the text and photo from 'Spiritual Guru' section. Hope someone can improve this back to the previous version with hyperlinks and the photo of the guru. wildT 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AKA BAPA[edit]

Don't keep putting this on. Its pointless.    Juthani1    15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UN":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Distinguishing Beliefs[edit]

BAPS has distinguishing beliefs than many other sansthas (branches) in the Swaminarayan sect do not have. One of which is a spiritual guru (teacher) that leads all in the present time and that takes jivas (souls) to Akshardham (heaven). People that go to BAPS have worshiped other gurus as well from the past. The order from earliest to present: Swaminarayan (lord), Gunatitanand Swami (also known as Akshar; is the abode of Swaminarayan hence the name Akshardham), Bhagatji Maharaj, Shastriji Maharaj, Yogiji Maharaj, and finally the present guru Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Another distinguishing belief from the BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is of Akshar-Purushottam. This doctrine states that Akshar is the abode, and Purushottam is the lord, thus one has to worship Purushottam to go to Akshar. Many sansthas of the past criticized this belief. The people of BAPS also believe that the present guru is like a helping hand to go to Akshardham, thus they stress the need of the worship of the guru. --Kpsthakkar (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Akshar Purushottam Upasana Article outlines some of these beliefs. Its in the article. I think this info that you want to add is realted to this article. Tjis article is mainly about the organization itself. The other article talks about the beliefs The World 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

BAPS Excommunication[edit]

Moved here From talk page of User:AroundTheGlobe and User:World (as it is pertinent to this article)

Interesting addition to the information below - in the same reference book (Williams), the sentence about Yagnapurushdas leaving the Vadtal sansthan is followed by this : "It may well be that the immorality of the acharya . . . created a condition that caused Yagnapurushdas to leave the temple." That doesnt sound like an excommunication to me. Again, this is a matter for discussion - User:Around the Globe and User:World, you're senior to me in terms of editing these pages, so I'll wait for your response. Hope to get your response in a week. Thanks. wildT (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We have gone over this several times now! Per earlier discussions, this was moved off Swaminarayan and retained on BAPS and Sampraday pages. It is a major point that commands a mention on these pages. Had the excommunicated not occurred there may not have been a BAPS today. There was definite official excommunication - refer to the Raymond Williams as neutral reference. Its been added on a few times and mysteriously disappears some time later - I wonder if someone is trying to hide facts. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Shastriji

It is all about WP:NPOV, I completely agree. However, every fact or statement on Wikipedia needs to be directly supported by preferablly a 3rd party source. By verification, I meant that I wanted a citation directly citing that BAPS was excommunicated. BAPS (or BSS) was created due to a dispute over the Akshar Purushottam Upasana. Certain people wanted the group excommunicated, but I wanted verification that it happened on an official basis.The World 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think we both will accept Raymond Williams as a 3rd party reliable source - his book states Sadhus who went on to form BAPS were excommunicated - and it was definetly official (in fact there was a court order restraining BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples or even entering them, this would not have been possible without excommunication). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The editor (from the edits, I'm unsure of the exact stance of the editor) from the edit summary appears to see the addition as controversial. I guess we just need to wait for the editor to actually discuss the topic.The World 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because something is controversial we do not need to keep it out - all we need to do is remain NPOV. As you said, if anyone has any objections they should raise them here. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the separation is that Shastri Yagnapurushdas left the Vadtal (older) sanstha, to form a new one because he had philosophical differences about the interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings and how they should be presented in the temples. It is after his leaving, that there was a legal case filed, as a part of which the older sanstha had to 'excommunicate' him to make their case. User:Around the globe and User:World, do you think we should add this information here? Currently it looks as if he was simply ejected from the older temple, which doesnt seem true, from my studies. wildT (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would be a good idea to expand it - gives a better view of what happened. Just a small correction there - excommunication was announced by the Acharya and then the legal case filed to stop BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples (they were restrained from doing so by the court order). The excommunication was essential to stop them from preaching at Sampraday temples - although they left Vadtal, they continued to go to smaller Sampraday temples in villages and preach there - which was stopped by the court. Any other views? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Trying to search for a reference for this. Any good source other than Raymond Williams' book? wildT (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Off hand I can only think of Bochasan Bandh, a Vadtal Mandir publication written by the Swami who fought and won the case restraining BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples (and at that time got BSS changed to BAPS dropping Swaminarayan, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court on right to religion grounds). However, that is POV and as such I would not like to use that as a ref. The Williams books are the most indepth neutral resource presently avaialable. There may be others, not had a check. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks - would be interesting to read the Bochasan Bandh, but I guess that'll have to wait until after my exams. Will scout around for Williams' book - I thought I had a copy but couldnt find it yesterday. wildT (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


Dr. Raymond Williams (the source used to support the idea that Shastri Yagnapurush was excommunicated) in his book A New Face of Hinduism states that a lower court found that Sadhu Yagnapurushdas and others were excommunicated (Pg. 57). However, Dr. Williams continues that the higher court overturned that decision. In fact, the higher court stated, "The laws of natural justice have clearly been broken in these proceedings [of 1906] and I have no hesitation in holding that as far as the law courts are concerned they would not recognize the excommunication of defendant No. [Yagnapurushdas] and would not deprive him of his rights to property on the grounds of that excommunication" The higher court, which takes precedence, relied on Sadhu Yagnapurushdas' affidavit to declare that the BAPS sadhus did not have a right to stay on Vadtal properties since they had "seceded", not excommunicated. Secede is defined in Merriam Webster as "to withdraw from an organization". Therefore,the legal conclusion, as stated by Dr. Williams, is that Sadhu Yagnapurushdas and the others left Vadtal Gadi - not excommunicated. The World 02:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Good point, strong reference. Then I think we should change the excommunication reference to a secession one. As a regular contributor, should also get Around The Globe's views. What do you say, Globe? I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of Williams book but it seems World beat me to it. wildT (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
That is the legal conclusion of that case. There was thereafter a case that went againt BAPS which uplheld the post-hoc excommunication. Give me some time, I will get the exact ref. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 07:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Off hand, Im posting something from an archive discussion on Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday on a similar topic by user Haribhagat in 2007:
Hi Sfacets, yes i have a source, by the name of Raymond Brady Williams who wrote 'An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism' - (
I will paste a chunk from the book, chapter 2 - Growth, administration and schism (page 54).
"The split came when Swami Yagnapurush (AD 1865-1951), commonly called Shastri Maharaj , left Vadtal temple in 1906 and was expelled from the fellowship from the hastily called meeting of the sadhus. He left to establish his own group with a few ascetics and a small number of householders who supported him".
There are also other sections in this book which are commentries on past court cases between BAPS and Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The jist of it is BAPS saints go to preach at Swaminarayan Sampradaya temples and the Acharya files a case. He wins as he proves that BAPS have been ex-communicated and do not give allegiance to vadtal therefore they have no right to enter premises which belong to Swaminarayan Sampradaya.(page 57-58) (Appeal no.165 of 1940 in the court of the disctrict judge, kaira, at nadiad from decree in reg. civil suit no. 519 of 1936 of the court of the sub-judge Mr. P. B. Patel of borsad). The Judgement was given by District Judge, Mr. J.D. Kapadiya, who delivered his judgement on 29 November 1943.
Even BAPS devotees will admit that, Yagnapurush(Founder of BAPS) split from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya to set up BAPS. Granted he left of his own will but a meeting by the sect officials later reported that he had been officially excommunicated by the sect and any of his activities are to be considered to be the same, again BAPS devotees will not dispute this either.
Haribhagat 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Around The Globe
To equate this in very crude terms to a person, if a person resigns of his own accord from a company, and then later the company decide to terminate his services - it is seen as a resignation and not a termination (firing) - although both could be held as legal by a court. Similarly, I think we need to look at this objectively and recognize that Sadhu Yagnapurush 'resigned' first, and then his membership was 'terminated' - hence, for wikipedia purposes, we need to consider it as a resignation (split) and not a termination (firing). Considering the chronology of what happened, I feel that considering this as excommunication - though not legally incorrect - might not be NPOV. wildT (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The way I see it is that the court upheld that they were expelled and hence cannot enter Sampraday mandirs. The other contention was that since they have been expelled their property becomes Sampraday property. That was declined - and the judge said he cannot uphold the excommunication to deny BSS right to property. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Section Addition[edit]

I agree with earlier discussion from 2007 that the page needs some restructuring. It is also missing a great deal of information and consists mainly of laundry list sections in its current state. As temples are the primary operating unit of the organization, I have done some research and am adding a new section on mandirs and their activities. Anastomoses (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Going along with my statement from earlier this month, I think the "Major relief activities handled by BAPS Charities," which is currently a big laundry list of relief activities, needs some improvement. I have researched the activities and background a bit more and am updating this section. Anastomoses (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New section[edit]

I added a much needed controversy section for specific incidents in the past that the public need be aware of. Vadtal sex scandals links and aacharya fund abuse also need to be posted. There have been reports of many changes to scriptures will be researched and updated such as with the aarti that seems like a over sensitive BAPS cult member keeps reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits[edit]

It appears that a user or users from the Detroit area who has been vandalizing Jay Sadguru Swami and other pages is now vandalizing this page as well. He/she is using various anonymous IP addresses from Wayne State U and the surrounding area as well as the username Swamifraud to repeatedly sabotage this page and others to reflect his/her inherent biases against all things BAPS. This includes making up a "controversy section" and citing a unreliable, unverifiable public forum as a source to support libel as in above post (WP:Verifiability). I again appeal for constructive dialogue and cooperation to present substantiated material in a neutral point of view. Please review Wikipedia NPOV policies (WP:NPOV) and stop vandalizing. Anastomoses (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that user is now deleting talk page posts. Anastomoses (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses (talk)[edit]

Anastomoses is deleting talk page posts and reverting changes to articles within seconds of updating them with facts. He is stalking the article and is clearly a biased member of this cult. Please address this lunatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anastomoses has been a very good contributor to the BAPS article with a very well-researched section added on BAPS Charities, as well as several other topics. Anastomoses's actions do not appear to me to be those of a "lunatic". In fact, I think they have done much to improve this encyclopedia, and it would be good for the broader effort to see their good work continue. I also don't think there is anything wrong in including a controversy section per se to this article, but I do agree with Anastomoses that the one cited source used by the anonymous editor does not meet the standards of Verifiability, which should, I feel be particularly adhered to in any sort of controversial issue. I am also concerned about the practice of anonymous edits and reverts, particularly of such a tendentious nature. I think it would be better if registered users weighed in on this issue, various view points were discussed with civility, and some consensus was developed about this disagreement before potentially questionably sourced material is included in the encyclopedia. In the meantime, I would suggest that the new section is temporary removed for a week or so, to allow registered editors to discuss it and arrive to some consensus that meets wikipedia standards. Anastomoses has raised a number of issues in his/her above post and I would welcome editors to counter/support that to help us all understand the issue better. I am not interested in getting into an edit war, but I am interested in improving this article and other articles on wikipedia, and I think the approach I suggest has been proven time and again to be a good way of doing that. Sacredsea (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand and have had added another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this source is slightly better than the public forum, so I am removing the public forum (unverifiable source) from the references. I would be happy to see some editorial consensus on this, and would propose that people weigh in within a week or ten days with their thoughts as that would be much preferable to a two-person edit war type of scenario on this or related pages. Thanks. Sacredsea (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your input. There are and have been documented turf wars in India that have resulted in violence and these needs to be acknowledged, especially for a large cult like baps whose followers constantly covers up any factual criticisms directed towards them.

Just remember what goethean said earlier. "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

Anastomoses is a biased member and needs a reality check. He has gotten into two close edit wars with my colleague and I over baps activity in the sect. My team and I are researching all aspects and will be updating the articles regularly and making sure that sensitive members are not changing facts. Cult members are usually defensive when it comes to defending their image. Again to reiterate to any cult members here, I have no personal bias towards baps or swaminaryan. Just because I am pointing out facts that are overlooked by research and covered up by baps/gadi members. Most people do not know that baps has changed multiple scriptures and there is documented evidence and it will be updated.

For example: Anastomoses is so confused and biased that when I tried to add the FACT that baps changed the jay sadguru aarti, he reverted the article 10 times until finally he was forced to leave that FACT. Why does this cult member not want this FACT available? He did not want the public to know that a important song to the cult has been changed? Why is that? I have noticed that as pramukh approaches his death, sensitive followers need to keep up the defending moves. This no way means that baps is bad or wrong but cult members seem to have a personal biased to even mentioning that baps changes words to fit their ideology.

I am traveling to Rajkot, India and Siem Reap Province in Cambodia next month and have a scheduled appointment with the Mahant of that temple to go over the original Swamini Vato. BAPS has changed words in that book and I have enough evidence to make the claim that baps fundamentally has to change scriptures to make them fit their ideology. I have posted sent the link for the Aarti changes, Swamini Vato preliminary copies to researchers currently studying swaminaryan cults. I find it interesting that when my collogues post the sex scandals and funds misappropriations by the acharya's in the original cult, the members there seem to get sour because of their beliefs. This seems maybe an interesting fact to forward news outlets in Chino Hill as well.

One important thing to note here is that baps ideology mainly comes from oral tradition. None of the three major scriptures in the sect mention gunatitanda as akshar. Not in the vachanamrut, not in the shikshapatri and not in the satsangi jeevan. The problem that baps has faced is that they have a very difficult time making the public ignore the thousands of commands by swaminaryan to follow the aacharyas. This unfortunately has led baps to make major changes and edits in the texts throughout the sect. Instead of making their ideology fit the texts, they make the texts fit their ideology.

For Example: baps publishes a book called Gems from Shikshapatri. According to a independent interview with a cult member, this version of the shikshapatri is distributed in the cult to all the children and is explained to them that theses selected gems are the most important verses of the shikshapatri. Conveniently all the verses mention Lord Krishna as supreme Lord or mentioning anything about the Nar-Narayan/Laxmi-Narayan gadis including the role of the aacharyas is left out. This manipulation has to be noted at least on wiki so that people understand the extreme measures any cult takes to keep themselves going.

Cult members: Please note that Swamini Vato and Gunatitanda articles will be updated soon. I hope to see some support from editors who understand these updates. As all writers of wiki should, evidence will be included. Anyone who cannot handle facts will be reported and blocked. Thank You (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for joining discussion everyone. Users, I completely agree with you that all pages should have positives and negatives of all organizations on Wikipedia. As this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a conspiracy forum, rules have been made to prevent false accusations. Please note that a strong personal belief does not count as a fact. Please also note that I stated specific reasons from wikipedia's policies to prevent such libel in my reversions on this page and the other pages that you mentioned. I am interested in maintaing and improving the quality of all Swaminarayan and Vaishnavism related articles, however you may perceive my defensive edits as one sided because you have only been contributing your insights to a handful of articles and posting items specifically targeting BAPS (hence my accusation of your bias on your talk page earlier, sorry if it was offensive). As my record will show, I have performed such defensive edits and helped improve all Swaminarayan articles. Nevertheless, I am glad we are all cooperating now and hope to see your stated noble intentions shine through. Anastomoses (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point taken Anastomoses. Our point is to state facts for everyone to see. If people keep hiding facts and making factual edits disappear like someone did on the aarti article then there is really no point of having a Wikipedia. As far as your opinion on strong personal beliefs not counting as a facts, if there is a source, and something that has really occurred or is actually the case, I don't see any libel. You are a good devout follower, you really seem to know your role and I forward look for your grammatical edits in the future. (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree with User:Sacredsea’s assessment that a community consensus is the best way to improve this article rather than an edit war. Having said that, I think both users should look at WP:NPOV and use it as a guide when they try to make any edits. User: should also keep in mind that original research is prohibited as per WP:NOR and unless you provide reliable sources that directly support your edits (WP:Verifiability) they may be removed. Furthermore, stating opinions or contested assertions as fact does little to improve this article while threatening to report “anyone who cannot handle facts” undermines other editors and any good faith edits they make. Community discussion, dialogue and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies is the best way to move forward. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Ronneywayne17

Good Points Ronneywayne17. I reviewed WP:NPOV and that was a good read and good point. The only advantage of original research is that I can validate and then verify. Publishing that information at this stage for our personal research is not a feasible option but we are working with a researcher who has requested some field studies and we send information as we get it. Keep in mind that good faith edits are acceptable until you have people reversing any factual criticism because of their personal biased. Community consensus at times also has it's disadvantages because large organizations tend to have a media department/brainwashed followers who constantly change any criticism and spin what they perceive a negative as we have seen throughout news reports on Wikipedia about vandalized edits and that's why majority of academic establishments reject Wikipedia as a credible source. (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It’s good to see that everyone interested in this page is attentive to the Wikipedia norms that govern here, particularly the core policies of No Original Research and NPOV. I agree with User:Rooneywayne17 that community dialogue among interested Wikipedia editors is the appropriate approach, particularly for subject matter such as the one at hand (see for why).

Especially when it comes to controversial and debatable content, it is important for Wikipedia articles to be both accurate and balanced (see WP:NOV, which includes WP:UNDUE). I think that both of these considerations weigh against including the “Controversy” section that the anonymous Detroit-area user(s) has advocated. In terms of accuracy, it is far from clear from the “DNA” piece cited that BAPS sadhus engaged in violence of any sort. The piece alleges that Vadtal sadhus were protesting against BAPS and against the police, but does not reliably support a conclusion that any BAPS individuals present were violent; a reliable, verifiable source would be needed before any such claim could be included on Wikipedia. In terms of balance, the “Controversy” section that the anonymous Detroit-area user(s) has advocated would constitute undue weight, and thus should not be included. As WP:Undue makes clear, even if discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject is verifiable and impartial (which itself is uncertain in the issue at hand), such discussion may still be disproportionate to its overall significance to the article topic, and therefore undue. WP:TE is particularly instructive here, as it bars giving undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. I think the issue here is generally analogous to the example given here, within WP:TE. Similarly, a separate section in an article, entitled “Controversy” and which only includes limited information about a single disputed incident, would unacceptably give undue weight to that dispute. HinduPundit (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I added two more links as evidence. Based on edits of HinduPundit, she may be a member of the sect with biased intentions. (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the source  ? Could you explain? (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source has to meet certain standards, including that the source is objective, has sufficient fact-checking, and sufficient experience and reputation in those regards. The sites you added do not meet those standards. For example, at the bottom of the wwrn page, it says: "Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or opinions expressed in the articles posted. This is purely an information site, to inform interested parties of religious trends." In other words, anyone can post their opinion. The site is more like a blog than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I see. I would have appreciated some effort to find the original article rather than just remove links. The article is original and I have contacted the source to get the archived version from the paper so that will no longer be a problem. I added addition sources as well for more conflicts as well. (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The new sources you added are reliable enough, but they do not support the assertions you are making. I am going to revert you again, and please stop editing the article until you obtain a consensus here that your edits are appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't permit this kind of battle in the article just because you believe you've fixed something. WP:BRD requires you to keep the discussion on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m glad that there has been a broader discussion on the issues raised here. I think HinduPundit, Rooneywayne17, and Bbb23 have expressed some very important points, but before engaging with them, I would like to point out a number of other important issues.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, I feel that charges of bias and disruptive editing made by (to be referred to as the anonymous Detroit area user(s)) against other editors should be properly checked out, and if warranted, the offending editors should be warned and potentially blocked if they persist in disruptive editing.

I checked out the Jay Sadguru Swami page on which anonymous Detroit-area user had asserted Anastomoses was repeatedly reverting factual changes due to bias.

I found that starting from 2013 March 26, anonymous Detroit-area user began to add an unverified sentence to the article which was quickly reverted by a number of users, including initially Jackson Peebles, and then, Anastomoses and others. Jackson Peebles and Anastomoses were justified in their reversions since the sentence was not in line with WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Moreover, Artic Kangaroo was justified in his/her revision since he/she corrected changes that were misrepresenting a verifiable source (1st change) and privileged a source of lesser verifiability (2nd change). Anastomoses explained as much on the talk page under Anonymous Edits. Yet, anonymous Detroit-area user(s) continued to engage in non-constructive edit warring. Based on comments in the talk page here above, Anonymous Detroit-area user(s) believed the sentence was factual and therefore, it should not be removed. However, Wikipedia is clear that editors are justified in removing anything not in line with Wikipedia policies of no original research and verifiability. Finally, as a result of anonymous Detroit-area user’s disruptive edits, Materialscientistsappears to have blocked one of Detroit-area user's IP addresses and semi-protected the page.

A similar situation has occurred in the Gunatitanand Swami article, where I first reverted a sentence added by anonymous Detroit-area user which did not satisfy WP:V, since it misrepresented a reliable source. Again (anonymous Detroit area user(s)) ignored the civil explanation of Wikipedia policies by Anastomoses on the talk page, and continued to engage in non-constructive editing.

A similar scenario of non-constructive editing by (anonymous Detroit area user(s)) has occurred on this page, which is apparent.

In addition to not satisfying WP:V, (anonymous Detroit-area user's) talk posts on all three of these articles are not satisfying Wikipedia:Civility. Civility is part of Wikipedia’s code of conduct and of one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. Incivility is not acceptable in any Wikipedia forum. This includes insults, name-calling, personal attacks, taunting and baiting, and lying. In the talk pages of the three articles mentioned above, (anonymous Detroit-area user) has disregarded Wikipedia’s policy of no personal attacks against Anastomoses and HinduPundit. (anonymous Detroit-area user) also uses the pejoratives, “cult” and “brainwashed followers”, to refer to a religious group and its purported members. I would also consider this a personal attack and contrary to WP:Civility. This sort of approach tends to drive away productive contributors and does not help the long-term goal of making a better encyclopedia.

Judging from the talk page posts above, it appears that's (anonymous Detroit-area user's) stated intention is to use Wikipedia to pursue a particular point of view (opposing a particular religious group - see unsubstantiated comments on texts & theology among others), but it should be noted that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOTFORUM), and thus (anonymous Detroit-area user)’s actions in that regard are inappropriate.

Based on this evidence, it is appears that contrary to’s (anonymous Detroit-area user’s) assertions, Anastomoses has not engaged in disruptive editing. However, all the evidence presented here points to the fact that (anonymous Detroit-area user) is engaged in disruptive editing (WP:TE). Anastomoses, HinduPundit, and Rooneywayne17 had mentioned some of these points, but I wanted to check to make sure since I feel that charges of disruptive editing are serious.

After it has been explained by a number of editors, I would hope that the anonymous Detroit-area user ceases from engaging in disruptive editing practices and adopts a more collaborative, civil approach wedded to Wikipedia policies, so that they may become a valued contributor.

Moreover, I agree with HinduPundit’s assessment that the point that (anonymous Detroit-area user) has cited under controversy here appears questionable due to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I also feel that Bbb23’s comments are exactly right. I think it would be useful if others also weighed in with their thoughts and arguments.Sacredsea (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a little confused in terms of what the problem is. All the references have been checked out. The controversy section of this article states that "BAPS sahdus were involved in violence in 2009 in India with the Vadtal sect over turf. Conflicts have occurred in the past, but this was the first time BAPS had been involved in violence." Is this not true? Are these references incorrect?

We have made these edits based on what goethean said earlier. "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

I have a feeling that I am being targeted by members who wish to sweep this under the mat and ignore the references? It's simply presenting a fact that turf wars occurred in the past. (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I found out the Anon Detroit-area users are also engaged in disruptive editing on Swaminarayan-related articles - also pointed out by other editors. Their behaviour makes it harder for other editors to work with them - from Bbb23 to Omnipaedista. Instead of engaging with the editors in the talk pages, they indulge in edit warring and reverting pages (See User_talk: and User_talk: They neither, provide any edit summaries for any of their edits or reverts, nor do they register - inspite of the editors' suggestions (although, that is their prerogative). Their neglect of Wikipedia policies and editors' suggestions amply support their lack of cooperation with editors who are working in this space. The hallmark of Wikipedia lies in its colloborative spirit.
Also, I observed these Detroit-area users making multiple personal/ad hominem attacks to a particular group and to several of the editors. This was pointed out in clear terms by Sacredsea and they were asked to desist based on Wikipedia policies (WP:PERSONAL). Yet their personal attacks continued. Their focus clearly seems to not be concerned with content creation and improvement but with attacking editors and pushing a non-neutral point of view. Based on their cumulative edits and attacks, it seems they are targeting a particular group, which raises doubts about whether they are making edits under good-faith. I hope they cease from such activities. I look forward to their cooperation with all the editors. Thanks! (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Controversy Section[edit]

I echo the sentiment of engaging in discussion until consensus is reached and abiding by Wikipedia's core policies and conduct. However, while many of the editor's here have made genuine attempts to champion and uphold the conduct and policies that govern Wikipedia, I have noticed that a group of anonymous Detroit users have not been participating in the right spirit. I want to reiterate an important issue raised by Sacredsea regarding a breach of Wikipedia conduct (WP:Civility) by the anon Detroit users. I agree with his/her assessment of the issue. Personal attacks are a deterrent to healthy dialogue. There are several noted examples above and I hope that they serve as a reminder of how not to engage in constructive debate.

Nevertheless, some editors have raised important issues that are worthy of discussion. In particular, I agree with HinduPundit's assessment of the Controversy Section and its relevance to the following policies: WP:Undue and WP:TE. While further debate would've enriched the discussion, the anon Detroit user's response was to label HinduPundit as a 'member of the sect with biased intentions.'

Furthermore, I don't believe referencing remarks made earlier by Goethean (anon Detroit user) serves as an effective response to the WP policy-supported arguments made by HinduPundit.

Actionjackson09 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The editors may have raised some decent points but so far none has stated a response to the last response. Three credible sources have been provided by the Anon user and their is still debate whether this is an issue? Is he lying that there are no turf wars and conflicts? (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC) is vandalising the article. Plese adhere to Wikipedia's policies. You will be reported if this continues. (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Though, the Anon user(s) have produced [three] sources, none of them provides credible and sufficient evidence about the arguments s/he is making and fall short of the Wikipedia policy of "verifiability" (WP:V). As per Wikipedia guidelines, the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability. If the information is not verifiable, it must not be included under any circumstances (See:,_not_truth#Definitions). The Anon Detroit-Area editor(s) claim that "BAPS sahdus were involved in violence" - None of the sources provided quote this. As Rooneywayne17 warns: " User: should also keep in mind that original research is prohibited as per WP:NOR and unless you provide reliable sources that directly support your edits (WP:Verifiability) they may be removed."

Hence, any controversial statement needs to be backed by a reliable source. In this case, none of the sources offer credible evidence that BAPS sadhus were causing the violence, an argument that anon user(s) are making which User:HinduPundit agrees with when he says, "In terms of accuracy, it is far from clear from the "DNA" piece cited that BAPS sadhus engaged in violence of any sort. The piece alleges that Vadtal sadhus were protesting against BAPS and against the police, but does not reliably support a conclusion that any BAPS individuals present were violent; a reliable, verifiable source would be needed before any such claim could be included on Wikipedia. In terms of balance, the “Controversy” section that the anonymous Detroit-area user(s) has advocated would constitute undue weight, and thus should not be included.". Further, the only statement that DNA article makes with regards to involvement is fuzzily stated in: "The situation soon turned violent when the crowd, which now included BAPS sadhus, targeted the Gadhada police station." However, even the statement that BAPS sadhus were in the crowd does not even hold weight. Since, original Police court documents report that BAPS sadhus were not present in the crowd at all. Here is a link to the original police report: ( The report basically states that the defendants (Vartal sadhus) repeatedly accuse (BAPS sadhus) of being in the crowd. They present four photographs - none of which support their claim. The report signed by Vishnukumar Vyas (Circle Police Inspector, Botad, Gadhada) concludes with non-involvement of BAPS sadhus in any sort of violence. Thus, it clearly invalidates the DNA's opinionated assertion - which makes the DNA source both questionable and unreliable.

Based on the above analysis this section clearly lacks reliable sources to back the claims made by the Anon editor(s). Also, Wikipedia works by adhering its article content based on a consensus of verifiable reliable sources, especially for a controversy section. The goal of Wikipedia itself is to present controversial issues fairly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth." Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them (See WP:TRUTH). The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability.

Thus, I agree with Anastomoses, that this section be removed to prevent all the unsubstantiated assertions. As Sacredsea clarifies in an earlier comment, that the cited source does not meet the standards of verifiability. Agreeing, with Rooneywayne17, "stating opinions or contested assertions as fact does little to improve this article while "threatening" to report anyone who cannot handle facts". HinduPundit, further acknowledges, "when it comes to controversial and debatable content, it is important for Wikipedia articles to be both accurate and balanced (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE)."

Also Anon Detroit-Area editor(s) have cited a Gujarati reference to assert "BAPS had to change published biography..." which is a conclusion that they are making based on the reference and thus constitutes original research (WP:NOR). This is an opinion held by the Anon-editor(s), since a reliable neutral source that explicitly explains why if any changes were made need to be provided - otherwise this comes under original research. Editors are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable (See WP:NOTTRUTH). Further, texts undergo revision for multiple reasons from edition to edition and do not imply any controversy. Also, citing a source that is hosted by a group attempting to advocate a non-neutral view raises questions about the validity of the source itself. Thus, clearly lacking a reliable neutral source to support the arguments being made. This statement and its corresponding statements also needs to be removed due to undue weight (See WP:UNDUE).

Looking at the article history, as a result of adding a non-neutral and unbalanced controversy section which unreliably supports the claims being made, has resulted into a vigorous edit warring going on in the article. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring. Based on edit summaries provided by multiple anonymous IP addresses, also support removal of this section. Due to absence of reliable verifiable sources that directly and in clear terms asserts that BAPS sadhus caused violence - this section is taken down.

Also, the general consensus point towards removing the section based on the different reasons summarized above from all the editors involved in the talk page discussion. Thus, I am removing this section based on the broadly held editorial consensus (WP:CONS). I again call on the editors to give any views they may have on the issues presented above. If convincing reliable sources to support the section cannot be presented, it has no place in Wikipedia. Please discuss your views below. Overtime, I hope we all continue to work together towards improving the quality of this article. Thank you all for your participation in the talk page discussion. (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the efforts of in trying to get a broad community consensus on this issue. This is the right way to go if we are to adhere to the guiding principles of Wikipedia and improve the article. Having said that, the Anon. user’s latest edit clearly violates WP:Verifiability since the reference he/she has used is incomplete and hence cannot be verified by any other user. This alone constitutes grounds for the edit to be reverted. The edits in the controversy section also violate WP:Undue as pointed out by previous editors on this talk page. In determining the proper weight for a particular section, Wikipedia considers a viewpoint’s prevalence in reliable sources NOT its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. This is an important distinction and since the Anon. user has failed to provide unbiased and verifiable references for the edits he/she has made, those edits and the section as a whole can be removed as per Wikipedia policies and principles. I encourage the Anon. user to get a registered account and participate in talk page discussions with an aim of improving this article in line with Wikipedia policies instead of engaging in edit-warring (WP:Edit warring) that is reducing the overall quality of the article. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Rooneywayne17
Is the Encyclopedia Of Religion not a reliable source? Also this link, needs to mentioned on this talk page so that future readers and researchers alike that are using wiki can understand that baps has made major changes and edits in the texts throughout the sect. Instead of making their ideology fit the texts, they make the texts fit their ideology and this needs to be publicly known. Examples include Jay Sadguru Swami, Swamini Vato, Shri Radhika Krishnashtaka and subtle changes in core texts that help promote BAPS philosophy. Please correct me if I am wrong. Currently, I am getting these facts published with an author so that it is documented and establishes the greater result of the schism. Additionally, as sadhu Pramukh approaches his death, we need to add a successorship part in both articles. Also, based on my understanding from a BAPS Official, there has been severe infighting within the BAPS organization for the next president/akshara. No articles have been published regarding this topic yet, but this may occur after his demise so it should be noted here. I am requesting to assist in updating the Gopalanand Swami article. I suggest we have three sections on how each of three main sect's views him with an expanded biography. is educated with BAPS so I look forward to your updates. I was curious, is there any textual basis in core writing that Gopalanand was a mukta? Additionally, to my amazement, a Chino Hills BAPS Mandir was recently built and there is no wiki page to establish that. It may have to do with the fact that baps was opposed by several members of the community regarding the height but eventually was able to get it approved because the city was left with no choice because baps already started construction. Unusually these mandir articles go up quick but I understand that baps members would like avoid mentioning this so I am requesting to help me out creating that article as well because I know how much that user appreciates factual information and making sure everyone is civil. I appreciate this discussion.15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC) (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to discuss the part where it was stated before that "BAPS had to change published biography...". This is not a mere opinion or original research like you claim. If time was taken in verifying the fact rather than finding ways to strike it down then there is substantial evidence that BAPS changed the biography with a source that explicitly explains why if any changes were made. I will go ahead and help you with that.

With regard to the Encyclopedia of religion, I believe that User:Rooneywayne17 has already pointed out on his talk page post that it is not properly sourced and as such other editors cannot verify. Since it fails to satisfy WP:V in this way, and it is regarding a controversial topic for which there is not consensus among editors, it would be better to keep it off the page, until 1) the proper reference is found and cited, 2) editors reach some consensus on the talk page (WP:BRD). It is not constructive to Wikipedia to engage in edit warring and just revert it when there is an open, unresolved discussion on the talk page. Regarding the later edition of the biography, after looking at the link which user posted, I believe the violation of WP:NOR was cited as a result of using a primary source document, without any reliable or objective secondary sources clearly stating that there is some controversy here. As I understand it, in general, successive editions of books are common and they are typically made due to changes in the text that reflect new research, changes in the author's opinion, etc. This, in and of itself, does not appear to me to meet the standard of controversy, since new editions of books are a common practice everywhere. Thus, since there is clearly not consensus on this issue, and it is controversial, I feel that user: should abide by WP:BRD and try to achieve consensus on the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. Also, I would note that there are repeated violations of the policies WP:BLP and WP:PA on talk pages by user It is clear from the avowed hostility in his talk page posts that he is importing a off-wiki dispute into Wikipedia. I would suggest that he should refrain from editing Swaminarayan-related articles due to this issue, or else be extremely sensitive to maintain a position of neutrality, lest his actions continue to be disruptive to Wikipedia.Sacredsea (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I checked the Encyclopedia of religion and it is there. Why it is such as big topic that this cited information is up but when a user asks about updating the Gopalanand Swami article or the Chino Hills baps temple page you refuse to take time out. You are biased. You refuse allow any factual, critical information allowed. Let's get from unbiased editors. Can you verify every source that is on this massive article? Stop attacking. Why does this bother you so much? Is it because you are a member of this sect and it bugs you that it's not perfect? That is call being involved in a cult. Read this It may help you think clearly. I can help the user post the pages of the encyclopedia because at this point you will do anything to manipulate the articles. Swamifraud (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to User:Swamifraud's above post, the point I am making about the encyclopedia is not a question of bias but proper Wikipedia procedure. As I mentioned in the previous post, UNTIL there is a proper citation made, because it is controversial and there is not editorial consensus, it should not be there. This point as well as the other points on the post are not an attack, but a civil discussion based clearly on Wikipedia policies. However, User:Swamifraud's comments directed towards me about being in a cult and allegations related to personal information are an attack, and User:Swamifraud has repeatedly engaged in such personal attacks for any editor who has disagreed with him. I do find this disruptive. With regard to the Encyclopedia, I don't think it is such a big deal, and the citation should be easily corrected, but a good faith effort to follow Wikipedia policies will make the encyclopedia better, and that is my intention.Sacredsea (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As an addition note to User:Swamifraud and user:, please talk page posts, like articles cannot violate WP:BLP by posting unsourced defamatory material about living persons. According to wikipedia policy, all editors may summarily delete such posts from articles or talk pages without discussion. So, I would request all editors who are doing this to desist from violating this policy or reverting such deletions. If there is credibly sourced information that meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, then that should be indicated in the post. Sacredsea (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the controversy post about differences in texts amongst different groups, I looked at the sources cited, and nowhere is there any indication of a controversy there, thus, inclusion into the controversy section is unwarranted and may violate WP:NOR. I think the issue has been explained at length by User:Anastomoses and other editors on this and other talk pages, so I am not rehashing all of those points, but User:Swamifraud and User: are ignoring all of those points, and simply keep engaging in edit warring. I would hope that the disruptive edits stop. Sacredsea (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is any final clear up on this issue:


Encyclopedia of Religion Swaminarayan Movement Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 13. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. p8889-8893. COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale, Cengage Learning Hanna H. Kim.

BAPS activities are not always without controversy, as in its open support of the Sardar Sarovar dam project in Gujarat. For its supporters, the Sardar Sarovar dam and the multi-dam Narmada Valley Development Project of which it is a key component are intended to increase power capacity and provide irrigation, cleaner drinking water, and flood control; for its opponents, the dam is environmentally and socially disastrous and is purchased at the cost of submerging a high percentage of dalit and adivasi villages. The wealthy BAPS organization is criticized by dam opponents for acting to protect its class interests, including those of its land holding members. In response, BAPS followers who are familiar with the Narmada controversy point to the various village relocation and community rehabilitation projects voluntarily instigated and funded by BAPS.

In addition to BAPS's break from the original Swaminarayan satsaṅg, other schisms have occurred. In 1966 a handful of East African BAPS followers broke away and founded the Yogi Divine Society. Additionally, sādhus from the original movement have left to form their own institutions that sometimes (e.g., Swaminarayan Gurukuls) but not always (e.g., Swaminarayan Gadi) retain an affiliation with their gāddī.

If Sacredsea deletes it again, and I will report her for vandalism.

Duarfimaws (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed from the controversy section edits that pertain to the Chino Hills mandir as they violate several wiki principles.

The edits give undue weight to minority views about the mandir and violate principles of neutrality. User:Duarfimaws has engaged in WP:Cherrypicking by selectively quoting phrases like 'terrorist haven' and 'third world city.' Accordingly, these edits inappropriately sensationalize a resolved issue related to a community project. In fact, the same LA Times article User:Duarfimaws has cited includes several quotes from individuals who overwhelmingly supported the construction of the mandir. As is such, the edits serve to promote the user's biased view and fail to present the topic and article with an impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL).

More importantly, these edits violate the WP:BALASPS principle. The principle makes clear that discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Similarly, BAPS has hundreds of mandirs around the world and a discussion surrounding a particular mandir's construction is not a significant topic in the context of this article and its intended subject matter.

Ultimately, the Chino Hills mandir represented a community project. Accordingly, there was ongoing discussion from residents and leaders. In the end, there was overwhelming support from the council and community members. Hence, it is incorrect to label this as a controversy. A true controversy would be characterized by a scandalous issue that at present has two vehement sides. Actionjackson09 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A user from Detroit using multiple area IP addresses (User: among many others) along with the now blocked socks of User:Swamifraud, User:Swamioffraud, User:Duarfimaws, User:6Duarf.imaws, User:Sageorsun, and possibly others has been consistently violating consensus, libeling, writing in extremely biased language, misquoting/stretching facts, and edit warring on this and other Swaminarayan-related articles for the past several months. The paragraph on the Narmada Dam project that this user created was cherry picked for negativity out of an entire section on the issue and is directly plagiarized without paraphrasing or context. Additionally, the paragraph deals with an isolated event and has disproportionate coverage relative to the many other points pertaining to the organization itself (WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASPS). I think it is still worth including in the article, so I am moving it with the other environmental activities of the organization where water conversation/supply, etc are already mentioned. Anastomoses (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nizil Shah made a change to the title of the controversy section, changing it to Schism, and deleting the word controversy from the first sentence in favor of dispute. I think that is a more appropriate title for the content of the section. It is not really a controversy that is described, but a schism that occurred half a century ago. To title that controversy would be similar to a section on the protestant reformation on the catholic wikipedia page being titled controversy. Perhaps it was when it was happening, but as years pass, it is not a controversy, but a schism in the history of the organization. User:Bluespeakers is suggesting that the word controversy must remain since it is the exact word in the book cited. However, the sentence in question is not in quotes in the wikipedia page, so the exact word need not be retained. If the exact sentence has been lifted from a book and not put in quotes, then it may be considered plagiarism and the paraphrase made by User:Nizil Shah would seem in this case doubly appropriate. Sacredsea (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How can it be grounds for plagiarism if it is cited? I will revert your changed and put the original in quotation. Let's allow others to have a change to speak. I looked at your history and literally anytime there is a dispute regarding criticism or controversy about BAPS, that's the only time you come and try to remove things? Since it will be quoted, I hope that you will not have a problem with it. The controversy section needs to be expanded not removed.

Bluespeakers (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Two photos of the same thing[edit]

This building has its own page & it's described in detail. Having two pictures in an article about another topic is not needed & clutters it. It is unnecessary and frankly pointless. It's understood if there was no other wiki page but there is already a written on it with many pictures. Why don't you start the Chino Hills temple page up? (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

These are entirely different images in respective contexts.The infobox-image is a lead image. See WP:LEADIMAGE and serves its purpose. The other furnishes an encyclopedic need and significantly addresses the article's topic. See WP:IMAGE RELEVANCE. Multiple images belonging to the same category do not violate Wikipedia policies as long as they are serving their purpose. Go read Wikipedia policies on image use from the Manual of Style. Also, Wikipedia recommends adding an image for its media value if it serves an encyclopedic purpose. Further, the infobox is used to provide a general overview about the article and most users won't even go beyond an infobox - so don't count the infobox. Also, in mobile space, the infobox is not even shown. So an image in an infobox belongs to a different image space. If the image was not in the infobox, I would agree that it might be cluttering the article. However, these are completely different images. Thus, there is no clutter or image congestion. At this point, the article hardly has that many images to bring in this issue. Also, the image is significant as it adds value to the topic where it is being placed, namely: "Notable projects and achievements". (talk) 01:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Good Job at not answering the all the questions. (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

History Section - Eventual Successors[edit]

I earlier added a History section - and have divided into 3 eras: Doctrinal Origins (1799-1905) and Development, Foundation and Early Years (1905-1950) and Organizational Formation (1950-1971). The "Eventual Successors" section is written within the context of 1905-1950 era and describes events to that era. However, the anonymous editors (talk) have added contents unrelated to that era. If they wish to work on the events they like to include, they can work on it and add that section elsewhere. Please stop your disruptive editing. The events added do not go into the History section at all - so I am going to delete it. If you really want to create sections on BAPS article, don't just jump on the bandwagon when a new section is added by adding content that is out of context. Work on it. Thanks! (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Swaminarayan Sampraday[edit]

Followers of the Swaminarayan Sampraday do not accept this interpretation. They accept the instructions of Swaminarayan who formally adopted a son from his brothers and appointed them to the office of Acharya for the Ahmedabad Gadi and Vadtal Gadi. This was done so that they would maintain a direct line of blood descent from his family. It is stated in scriptures established by Swaminarayan primarily through the Desh Vibhag Lekh, with further instructions in the Shikshapatri, Vachanamrut and Satsangi Jeevan.

Is there a problem with this? This all can be in cited within wiki. Swamifraud (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify below the argument that you are trying to make that you would like to include [and why should it be included and in what specific section] in this article with complete citation. Thanks (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Next, "Have you (BAPS members) ever actually read the Desh Vibhag Lekh?"

Generally BAPS members do not read this document. They are not instructed to read this as a core scripture and searching the entire, this document, the final will of swaminarayan is not considered important in the BAPS sect because the information in it does not mention anything about Gunatitanand Swami but rather clearly and explicitly it states that his two adopted sons are the only two successors of the Swaminarayan Sampraday and mentions nothing about akshar. The mention of this document should take place in the baps page to let readers know that there is already a written doctrine in place that has Swaminarayans Sons as the leaders. The interpretation is what baps is about not what was actually written and that is the argument.

Duarfimaws (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know how this works but here is my input on this matter. As you established earlier, the Desh Vibhag Lekh was the final will and testament of Swaminarayan. You had also mentioned that this document is not relevant. I have read the document. I understand that there is no talk of akshar in the entire document. This is because Swaminarayan had the responsibility of ensuring that the sect would continue on through a smooth transition after his demise. The Desh Vibhag Lekh is a legal document that is owned by the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. Because of this, there is no way that BAPS can publish that document on their website or in any case for that matter. Furthermore, the document is not considered irrelevant in the sect. The document is occasionally mentioned and explained in discourses given by the saints in the temple. This includes the history and what effects the document had on the Sampraday. I have talked to one of the saints about this matter, and they also explained to me that because it was a legal document meant for secular eyes, there would be no mention of aything spiritual including akshar, the successor and such. The document explains that Gopalanand Swami would be the head of the two regions. However, that does not imply that he would be the next spiritual successor. It would mean that he would help guide the two Acharyas into smoothly transitioning into running a Sampraday after their god had left the earth. It is true that BAPS members are not formally instructed to read this document only because BAPS is not able to formally present that document t them because it is the property of the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. The previous individual as also stated that the document is not considered important in BAPS. However as far as I have seen and heard from the discourses of the saints and the chats that i have had with members of the sect, it is not blatantly disregarded. I am not a member of any of the swaminarayan sects, just a bystander. I am exteremly sorry for the long response, but I hope that I have done this properly because I am new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92qwerty925 (talkcontribs) 02:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


Do we need to state that it is a doctrine? Clearly it was not because he never instituted this policy when swaminarayan was alive. He made his son's the head and every document published from this sect mentions that so how is an interpretation a doctrine for this sect?

Swamifraud (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Desh Vibhag Lekh[edit]

The final testament of Swaminarayan known as the Desh Vibhag Lekh does not state any other successors than his sons.[1] 

Is this not the final scripture that states what the successor policy is and who they are? No where does it mention Akshar Purushottam philosophy? Does any one have dispute with this? Swamifraud (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I am new to Wikipedia so I don't know how this works but here is my input on this matter. As you established earlier, the Desh Vibhag Lekh was the final will and testament of Swaminarayan. You had also mentioned that this document is not relevant. I have read the document. I understand that there is no talk of akshar in the entire document. This is because Swaminarayan had the responsibility of ensuring that the sect would continue on through a smooth transition after his demise. The Desh Vibhag Lekh is a legal document that is owned by the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. Because of this, there is no way that BAPS can publish that document on their website or in any case for that matter. Furthermore, the document is not considered irrelevant in the sect. The document is occasionally mentioned and explained in discourses given by the saints in the temple. This includes the history and what effects the document had on the Sampraday. I have talked to one of the saints about this matter, and they also explained to me that because it was a legal document meant for secular eyes, there would be no mention of aything spiritual including akshar, the successor and such. The document explains that Gopalanand Swami would be the head of the two regions. However, that does not imply that he would be the next spiritual successor. It would mean that he would help guide the two Acharyas into smoothly transitioning into running a Sampraday after their god had left the earth. It is true that BAPS members are not formally instructed to read this document only because BAPS is not able to formally present that document t them because it is the property of the original Swaminarayan Sampraday. The previous individual as also stated that the document is not considered important in BAPS. However as far as I have seen and heard from the discourses of the saints and the chats that i have had with members of the sect, it is not blatantly disregarded. I am not a member of any of the swaminarayan sects, just a bystander. I am exteremly sorry for the long response, but I hope that I have done this properly because I am new to this.

Jaga Swami[edit]

Was jaga swami not a propagator of the philosophy? He was also on the BAPS guru pampara at one point. Why is this being removed:

Jaga Bhakta was also a leading disciple of Swami. Under instructions from Gopalanand Swami, he, too, had detached himself from everybody and had come to Junagadh to remain in the company of Gunatitanand Swami[2]. They served according to the wishes of Swami and pleased him and became two of his foremost disciples. Through his association with Gunatitanand Swami, Bhagatji Maharaj understood that the doctrine of Akshar-Purushottam was the true doctrine propagated by Swaminarayan. Bhagatji Maharaj was excommuncated from the Sanstha, but through the persistance of certain devotees, he was allowed back in to the fold[3]

Swamifraud (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe it may not be so relevant to the BAPS article. While it was clear that the gurus played important roles in the history of the group, there are many other leading devotees through the history of this group -- to begin to mention all of them may not be appropriate in this article. Perhaps a separate article may be in order if considered notable enough. I don't know of any evidence that Jaga Bhakta was in the BAPS guru parampara. I have not seen such information in Williams or Kim or other scholarly sources. That may also be a reason why it was/should be removed. Sacredsea (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Your statement shows that you are a relatively young BAPS member. Before pramukh was added to the guru pampara, jaga swami was included along with gopalanand swami. Later after pramukh was added, both swami's remained but in a different order. Later, Jaga swami was completely removed from the pampara. In 1995, baps stopped producing gopalanand swami images as well and completely removed him from any future productions. I will upload the line up pics of all stages and the current stage. This is VERY important to have because baps is based on successors and if people are removed it should be noted why. I will add to the article as well. Also, please use indentation when you reply to a post - it makes it easier to read the posts as has stated. Tt makes it easier to read the posts.

Duarfimaws (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bhagat's Promise[edit]

Bhagatji Maharaj was excommuncated from the Sanstha, but through the persistance of certain devotees, he was allowed back in to the fold[4]  

I believe that this needs to be added because even though shastri was kicked out after, the previous unidentified akshar also had issues with the authorities.

Also this is very important. BAPS strives on claiming that "akshar" is a imperishable everlasting entity. Only the person that does once they die. If that is the case then is this fact directly from the sect's website wrong?:

Shastriji Maharaj was still willing to stay to obey Bhagatji Maharaj's orders to remain in Vadtal by stating , "No matter if I have to die here but do not talk about seceding from this place. And Bhagatji Maharaj has promised me that even if I am cut into pieces, he will sew me together again, but I should not leave Vadtal."[5]

HE was instructed by his predecessor to NOT leave under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!! Even death??? How does a imperishable everlasting entity going to change their mind in a different body? This is extremely important because it shows that there was always an intent to leave and create a new sect.Swamifraud (talk) 18:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The beginnings of Satsang Outside of India or Global Expansion[edit]

Global Expansion is a better title for The beginnings of Satsang Outside of India Swamifraud (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Each place does not need to have a lengthy title. The name of the place where the expansion is enough.

I agree with User:Swamifraud that the title Global expansion with the subtitles as the respective places, would be more elegant than the current titles. I would like to see what other editors, particularly the one who posted, this feels. Sacredsea (talk) 04:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Please use indentation when you reply to a post - it makes it easier to read the posts. Insert any number of colons to adjust the indentation. Anyways, back to topic. I have updated the section that I posted with shorter header length. Also, I would not like to use Global Expansion for now - since it was not during this era that it had attained a significant visibility of being globally present as in a much later period - infact, it was during this era that global expansion had begun. Editors can suggest a better shorter title name besides "Global Expansion". I will see if I can update with the era which really achieved global expansion in the true sense and plan to use it there. (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Swaminarayan ontology[edit]

This is a repeat of information. It is already on the founders website and clutters this article. Does anyone have objection to the removal of this?Swamifraud (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that all of Wikipedia is a necessarily a repeat of information from reliable secondary sources. I believe that it is a good addition to the article as it clearly describes the core beliefs of this group using verifiable sources.Religious groups are based on their belief systems so that should be clearly described in an article about that religious group. Therefore, I feel that it isn't clutter, but a valuable addition. Sacredsea (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The Swaminarayan ontology, is a very significant topic in the Swaminarayan sampradaya. Historically, when Swaminarayan travelled the length and breadth of India, while asking the question as to "what are these five entities" wherever he went. As such, it establishes the foundational base for further buildup of the section in which it has been included. Thus, giving an appropriate context to the readers. As it serves a purpose, I see no reason for it being removed. It is a valuable contribution. Infact, this has been a very well researched piece that I feel the editor who posted this should also post [the whole or part of] it in other Hindu/Swaminarayan-related articles. These are my views. (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Could you clarify which sampraday you are referring? The original swaminarayan sampraday or baps? Duarfimaws (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples.[6] Women are required to sit on one side of the temple or at the back behind the men and are not allowed to speak in front of a group of men or even before a mixed gender congregation.[7] Women are also not allowed in the temple while they are menstruating.[8]

Is there any issue with this? The citation is there but just needs to be corrected in terms of the format? It can be in a women section or criticism section. Move it if you want and can justify why.

Swamifraud (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Swamifraud your first reference (Williams pg 186) contains no mention of women. Hence According to WP:Verifiability, ‘the citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article’. Since this is not the case the removal of the edit is warranted. Furthermore, as User:Sacredsea and User:Anastomoses have previously pointed out, the citations show no indication of controversy and should not be included under a controversy section since this would violate WP:NOR and may also violate WP:NPOV. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Rooneywayne17 is truly a bad person. Instead of trying to find the right page, he deletes important work. I am calling on any administrator to block thiis scumbag. He has no intention of improving articles. Just promoting his cult in a positive way. What a total waste. (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow looks like the page number for the source was flipped. Rooney wayne is garbage for removing that instead of correcting that. How much of a low life are you would rather delete information rather than make sure it's valid just because its critical of your org. People like you ruin wiki. Vandals like you deserve to be blocked. I am going to make sure to check your edits. Hopefully this shows people reading the brain washing by cults and how it makes people do things that are manipulative. Duarfimaws (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the edit:

'Women are required to sit on one side of the temple or at the back behind the men and are not allowed to speak in front of a group of men or even before a mixed gender congregation.'

User:Swamifraud is inappropriately engaging in WP:Cherrypicking. The user has misrepresented the content in 'The Development of an American Hinduism' in order to present a biased point of view. Instead, the author of the text presents a clearer context for gender separation. This includes the sadhus' vow of celibacy and their presence in the congregation as a determining factor. User:Swamifraud fallaciously presents this topic and as a result, is inappropriately trying to equate gender separation with the marginalization of women. I am removing this edit and I encourage further discussion. Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate all the editor's participation in the talk page discussion with regards to the issues pertaining to this article. However, please note, that when replying to post, indent your post by inserting an adjustable number of colon(s)":" before you type your post.
I agree, Rooneywayne17 should have tried looking up for the page number and fixed the issue. However, if I am not mistaken, I had warned one of these users that for controversial text wherever proper full citations was not given, it may run the risk of immediate removal. Also, User:Duarfimaws and User:, please desist from making personal attacks to editors. Since, it does not help in the long term work of this article and detracts from the collaborative culture . Refrain from using non-neutral language.
I have removed the following text: "No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Women are also not allowed in the temple while they are menstruating." Since, the source from which it is being cited does not establish controversy - as mentioned by 3 other editers: Rooneywayne17, User:Sacredsea and User:Anastomoses. There are no issues with the text being cited. We can move the text to some other section where it makes sense. Please share your take on this. (talk) 03:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear up of ideas deleted by : deleted by[edit]

This was deleted a while ago but there are a few key points that should remain. Bases on the edit warring that has occurred here it seems that we have two different types of people disputing the way the articles should be perceived. Let's look at some of the statements:

None of the writings explicitly say that Gunatitanand Swami is the successor of the Sanstha.

This 100% true. There is a difference between being akshar and being the successor. The three main successor were Swaminarayan's sons and Gopalanand swami. From website: "But before that he called Gopalanand Swami and recommended to him, “I have appointed you as a senior of both the regions." The point of this is that it needs to be stated in the BAPS article that no matter the interpretations are, there are already explicit writings to confirm who the successors are. If we are missing something let us now.

Next, Swaminarayan is a human and so pramukh swami and they are not more than humans. This is 100% true. They were conceived through intercourse just like everybody else and nothing needs to be said about that. Some people believe he may be more. There are many people who believe that others are more. "Swami Narayan was an idiot." This may not be a nice way to put it but the writer did point out an interesting fact. This so called divine figure split then-India and divided them into two sides for his sons to lead temples on, forgetting that the REST OF THE WORLD was still left. This is a true fact. There is no mention for temples around the world as I do not believe that he considered in his realm of reality that his group would be spreading further out. Maybe this can belong on the Swaminarayan page. Also it was said "Anyway, I am wondering why you do not expland the Gopalanand Swami article?" This I do not understand why users Sacredsea and do not improve this article? This man was important in both sects. The key point is that those two users have a biased towards the Gunatit swami because that's all they want to promote. I believe that they only focus on certain article for promotional edits through there tedious editing of certain topics only. I would like to invite them to add more information and make that page better. Let's work together.

Duarfimaws (talk) 05:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Scriptural Renditions[edit]

Removed: "BAPS renditions of many fundamental scriptures and Shloka's differ from the..." since it violates Wikipedia's no original research policy - specifically it clearly violates WP:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete Title Section[edit]

I am deleting the "Title" section in this article for two main reasons: One - Wikipedia requires all information to be citable to sources. When information is unsourced, and it is doubtful any sources are available for the information, it can be boldly removed. See WP:USI. Two - most of the information given in the section is inaccurate beyond reasonable doubt and as such should be immediately removed. See WP:IAI. The article already has content that clearly explains the title, hence this section appears redundant. Nonetheless, if there is an editor who still feels that this section should be kept, I suggest we can continue the discussion here and reach consensus. Meanwhile they can continue to work on the section in their user page while furnishing references for the many dubious statements made here. Thanks (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Allegation Edits violate BLPCRIME[edit]

The recent edits by User:Priyadswami violates WP:BLPCRIME and thus deleted. This is the same user who had earlier been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets). WP:REALNAME The user name also violates WP:REALNAME as it is identifiable to Priyadarshan Swami. (talk) 13:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I will be changing my name as soon as possible as I was unaware of the WP:REALNAME policy. Your accusation of me being the same user who had earlier been blocked (as User:Duarfimaws, User:Swamifraud and their related sock-puppets) is your wrong and your opinion. I read the policy of WP:BLPCRIMEand it says "For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured." Pramukh swami is a world renounced guru with tens of millions of followers and and BAPS has thousands of centers and temples. This information is crucial and BAPS responded on their site. You are violating WP:Editwarring , WP:Ownershipofarticles, and WP:Consensus.Priyadswami (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
They said no problem found so I don't need to change my username. Priyadswami (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that for a biography of living persons, such serious allegations should be given serious consideration by editors not to include it until conviction. For the issue about "relatively unknown" I would assert, that is relative. Outside of the state of Gujarat, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. To say it another way, for Enlgish wikipedia users, Pramukh Swami is relatively unknown. Thus, WP:BLPCRIME should apply. That argument, of course, is open to debate, and I would like to see what other editors think about this. Also, I did a cursory fact check on Priyadswami's addition to the article that was either incorrectly cited or incorrectly quoted. So, if a consensus of editors do feel that this should go into the article, then I think we need to make sure that it is correct before putting it up. Would love to hear what others think. Sacredsea (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^ Williams 2001, p. 186
  7. ^
  8. ^