|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Excommunication article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Hindus
- 2 Parsi - Zoroastrians
- 3 Buddhism
- 4 Bold, revert, discuss
- 5 Etymology: communion and communication
- 6 Uh, Hindus totally got excommunicated...
- 7 Alewi (islam) and Düşük?
- 8 Ahmadiyya subsection under Islam ,or separate section
- 9 Leo Tolstoy case
- 10 Correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8
- 11 Original research
- 12 Organization
- 13 Major excommunication
I am afraid your statements in response to my arguments are contradictory. For example, you mention that Sadhu Yagnapurushdas was “expelled from the fellowship by a hastily called meeting of the sadhus”, yet you’ve put up “expelled…..by the then Vadtal acharya”. It should be noted that the court case cited by Williams said that the acharya of the Vadtal Gadi was a minor at the time and, thus could not be a party to any expulsion proceedings. He was, thus, not a signee to any resolution of expulsion, which was signed by some of the sadhus and some, though not all, of the trustees (The resolution of expulsion was not signed by the Kothari of the Vadtal temple, whose name was first on the list). So that misstatement about the Vadtal acharya should be noted and corrected.
Secondly, I would note my continued surprise with the “legally excommunicated” that you had written before, when the reference that you had cited for that statement (Williams 2001) so clearly states exactly the opposite to be the case -- that the court had ruled that the excommunication was illegal, as “the laws of natural justice were clearly broken” and “the law courts would not recognize the excommunication of defendant No.1 (Shastri Yagnapurushdas)”. Moreover, WildT has noted earlier that the Fuller reference you had used also makes no reference to excommunication. At the very least I would gently suggest that you be more careful about making sure your references actually support the arguments you are making. Too much of this type of reference mistakes might lead others to assume that reference falsification is going on, and that you are not working in good faith. However, in this case, I continue to believe that you are working in good faith, and I do appreciate that in response to my above argument, you removed the word “legally” from the “legally excommunicated” which you had written before.
As we agree that the cited sources are clear that the resolution of excommunication was not legal, this, brings us to the basic question here: is an illegal excommunication/expulsion still an excommunication/expulsion? (I am not even getting into whether expulsion is an exact synonym of excommunication at this point).
A law that is illegal is no longer a law. A sale that is illegal can no longer be a sale. Similarly, an excommunication that has been ruled illegal by a court cannot be an excommunication. And it certainly cannot be chosen as exemplary of a Hindu excommunication on a site that strives for encyclopedic objectivity. It is that simple, and the references have all been cited – Williams(2001), the Legal proceedings of the said case in the Nadiad court, etc.
Based on the presented evidence, I agree with WildT’s earlier suggestion that this example needs to be removed, and other more recent and more tenable examples which WildT has found on news sites should be included as examples in this article.
By the way, I still think the word “claiming” is a loaded word and can imply bias to someone reading the article. Furthermore, Williams simply refers to the Lekh as a “document” not a will or testament and it deals with administrative matters not necessarily spiritual matters. But in light of the above argument, I think the point is moot, as the entire example needs to be removed.
Rooneywayne17 (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Rooneywayne17
Your getting into the nitty gritty of things and mixing issues. In Vadtal, the Acharya is a figurehead and any decision taken is in the name of the acharya (like the Queen of England). What the court upheld was Yagnapurushs right to property, but if you read carefully it still restrained him and his sadhus from entering Sampraday temples and preaching there as they had been expelled. That is the moot point.
On page 36, Williams states that the lekh has been accepted by the Bombay High court. Yagnapurushs philosophy also contradicts the Shikshapatri - a copy of which lies at Oxford University. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- Dear AroundTheGlobe, I think RooneyWayne17 has raised some legitimate issues with regard to your edit. I understand that while he did get into the “nitty gritty of things”, there are valid concerns as to the whether the edit should be up in the first place on this page. Your assertion that “Yagnapurushdas’ philosophy contradicts the Shikshapatri” is not a constructive form of dialogue. As editors, we should be working mutually toward including only those assertions of fact that are relevant, unbiased, and substantiated. The quote above is none of these. The point Rooneywayne17 made about the legality of the expulsion has a very detailed reference in Williams, and page 36 of Williams is clear – the “acceptance” by the Bombay High Court refers only to the geographical boundaries between the Vadtal and Amdavad Gadis – nothing more. I am of the strong opinion that more comments from other users are needed and even possibly a vote, before you can disregard both RooneyWayne17’s and WildT’s comments and concerns. HinduPundit (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was stating facts about Yagnapurush and the Shikshapatri, correct if wrong. The Williams book clearly states that the Bombay High Court as accepted the Desh Vibhag Lekh as the last and final testament of Swaminarayan. I dont know where your coming from! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you have used the words “was later legally expelled” with regard to the edits you made on this page regarding Shastri Yagnapurushdas. However, the reference you listed indicates otherwise. Page 54 merely states that Shastri Yagnapurushdas was “expelled from the fellowship by a hastily called meeting of the sadhus”. There is no mention as to whether this was legal or not on this page. On page 58, Prof Williams has a quote from Judge Kapadiya’s ruling that states the following, “"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 [Yagnapurushdas]”. With explicit regard to the issue of the legality of the excommunication, your statement has no foundation since it contradicts the very reference you are using.
The sentence “He went on to form his own institution,Bochasanwasi Swaminarayan Sanstha or BSS (now BAPS) claiming Gunatitanand Swami was the rightful spiritual successor to Swaminarayan.” doesn’t seem to add anything to the overall topic of excommunication and the inclusion of the word “claiming” is a blatant contravention of Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy which states that “certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another.”
“expelled from the fellowship by a hastily called meeting of the sadhus” - that in itself is enough to merit inclusion. Well it does go against the Desh Vibhag Lekh, a document legally accepted as the last will and testament of Swaminarayan as well as the Shikshapatri - that is why claimed. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Interesting! I found a lot of news articles on recent excommunications on Indian news sites, many of the excommunications being religious in nature and yet social in essence (example - stopped from entering Temple because of being lower caste, then excommunicated because of forced entry.). Makes me believe more that recent news links would be more relevant here than older disputed examples. wildT (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Have also checked up the 2nd reference (Fuller) and that makes no mention of his expulsion / excommunication. Fuller writes, "the Swaminarayan order suffered its greatest schism when an ascetic called Yagnapurushdas disputed the acharya's authority, claiming instead that Swaminarayan had appointed Gunatitanand, one of his close followers, as his successor; from Gunatitanand, Yagnapurushdas traced his pupillary descent. His new group was called the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha and its principal doctrical innovation . . ." As Fuller leaves the modality of Yagnapurushdas' departure from the old school open, this is not a correct reference and I propose to remove this from the reference list from here. Will wait a couple of days for responses before taking action. I believe in democracy! wildT (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Have added more 'meat' here with a current example from The Hindu newspaper, about scavengers being excommunicated. I dont think the other example, of Shastri Yagnapurushdas, works as well here because as per the reference (Williams) he left the organization and was then (as an afterthought / face-saving measure?) expelled. He doesnt use the word excommunicated, and clearly notes that the decision was made in a hastily-convened meeting - possibly to make it look like an expulsion rather than a voluntary resignation. Am looking for an argument / agreement on this so we can either let this example remain, or change it. wildT (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lets not play with words. Expelled and Excommunicated works out to the same thing. It is mentioned that he was later expelled - once sadhus are initiated they cannot just resign. It is nowhere mentioned he resigned btw. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 05:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Around The Globe, I am just finding that you are not engaging in healthy and meaningful dialogue. You are not even understanding the argument that RooneyWayne17 is making - nor do you address the points he is raising. I suggest you re-read his post and not be stuck to just one sentence. I don't see any level of co-operation or mutual understanding on your part. It's not just about words - it is about the meaning in the overall context. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Please explain what you think I do not understand. The one sentence is extremely important and backed by a verified neutral source (Williams). If you feel I am wrong kindly provide a verified neutral source which says Sadhu Yagnapurush was *not* expelled from the Sampraday. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 06:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Parsi - Zoroastrians
Would it be out of place here to include the attempt to ban two Parsi priests, by the Parsi central trust? Refer to the article here - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Parsi-Punchayet-ban-on-priests-quashed/articleshow/7683239.cms. I think it is an attempt at excommunication, but I might be interpreting it differently. Will wait for a month before posting it in the article, for a response from someone who knows more about this subject. wildT (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- This seems to correspond to suspension of a cleric in Roman Catholic canon law, not to excommunication. Esoglou (talk) 16:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
- what does "refraining from lying about spiritual gains" mean? Was it translated from some other language with different sets of grammar?126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Bold, revert, discuss
Quiverbbc, please read WP:BRD. I have now indicated some of the difficulties with the paragraph that you are insisting on inserting into the article. Even ignoring grammatical peculiarities such as "Christians churches" and the use of "excommunicants" in the sense, it seems, not of those who do the excommunicating, but of those who are excommunicated, Wikipedia requires that you provide citations from reliable sources for any statement that you insert. Read WP:OR. Instead of continuing to revert, please discuss the problems. Esoglou (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
- Esoglou, I think this page may need semi-protection. He's determined to push that one web site (whose verifiability is dubious; I checked the site) regardless of what I have repeatedly stated in summaries when I revert it. He's (or someone is) still continuing to revert, but he's now hopping to various IPs. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Etymology: communion and communication
At the very beginning of the article, it is written that "excommunication" means "putting [someone] out of communion". It should be explained, then, how "excommunication" and "excommunion" relate to each other. Communion and communication are two different process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parneix (talk • contribs) 15:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Uh, Hindus totally got excommunicated...
Alewi (islam) and Düşük?
In Turkish alewi islam which is nearer to shia has some sort of excommunication.
religious leaders called "dede" can call someone "düşkün" and they can no longer attend to "cem" sessions, alewi's don't talk or trade with him/her anymore.
I have found a forum which talks about it, but it is in Turkish. Maybe i should write a turkish article first.
Ahmadiyya subsection under Islam ,or separate section
Ahmadiyya ex-communication is detailed through documents and also through first-hand accounts of those who have been ex-communicated. I added a sub-section a while ago but it was removed. Please state reasons. Some more information has come to light about the exact practices and wording of this process.
Leo Tolstoy case
In Tolstoy's article it is crearly mentioned that he was excommunicated by russian orthodox church in 1901. Another example is Ivan Mazepa who was excommunicated for political reasons. Should we put that in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Correct interpretation of 1 Corinthians 5:1-8
The wiki currently states "In 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, a man is excommunicated by the church at Corinth for sexual immorality (incest)." This is unfotrunately incorrect. Contextually the text is written from a distant authour to the Corinthian church. The author advocates a passage of excommunication yet is not able to communicate in the letter that the excommunication arose. There seems to be solid evidence that the excommunication did arise (the later reference to the excimmunication in the wiki in respect to the 2nd Corintinian letter provides evidence).
It would be more correct to state that "On being directed by the author of the 1st letter to the Corinthians, in 1 Corinthians 5:1-8, the Corithinian church excommunicated one of their members for sexual immorality (incest)".Ozhamada (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Today's edits are a good example of original research. I do not see how the Latin quote provided can be construed to say that one is "no longer Catholic" upon excommunication. It speaks of the external bond of unity. Furthermore, several valid reliable secondary sources were removed which assert the opposite of what is claimed by 184.108.40.206 (talk · contribs) in his edits, so I would ask for a revert or at least a justification of the assertions with proper sourcing to back them up. Elizium23 (talk) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This article is very long, due mostly to detailed descriptions of procedures in the Catholic, LDS, Jehovah's Witness, and Christadelphian faiths. What would everyone think of splitting those into separate articles, and leaving only brief summaries here? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)