|WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism||(Rated Stub-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated B-class)|
Change to article
The current Gunatitanand Swami article contains very little information about Gunatitanand Swami himself and instead seems to focus rather heavily on Swamini Vato. As such, it is not only glaringly incomplete but fails to provide insightful information about a very important Saint in the context of Swaminarayan Hinduism as a whole. Furthermore, the entire article has very poor sourcing, with the web reference from which most of the biographical information is sourced either not in existence or inaccessible. In light of the above, I have attempted to improve the article by providing a detailed explanation of Gunatitanand Swami’s life and his impact on Swaminarayan Hinduism using a variety of authoritative published materials, and attempting to provide valid citations of every statement. Comments and suggestions are always welcome. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As I had mentioned in my previous talk page post, in the article that I had put up, every sentence is referenced with an array of verifiable references that can be found in various university and research libraries. In contrast, the article that you reverted to consists of only erroneous referencing. The first reference is non-existent/irretrievable. The only other reference in that article points to page 190 of Prof. Williams' book, which speaks about the sacred literature of the group, but has no mention of Junagadh Mandir, Gunatitanand Swami, Swamini Vato or anything related to the text in the wikipedia article you reverted to.
So, the article I put up is well-researched with 80 references. While, in contrast, the article you reverted to, with the only two references being erroneous, is wholly original research, entirely contrary to Wikipedia policy.As such it would be contrary to Wikipedia guidelines to remove the well-researched article and replace it with an article that is original research, without any discussion and consensus on the talk page. I think further discussion on the talk page and community consensus is needed before a comprehensive and heavily referenced article can be replaced with one that has incorrect references and doesn’t paint a full picture of Gunatitanand Swami’s life. This can only help enhance the article and make it more useful to Wikipedia users.
Thus, I am reverting back to the well-researched article and requesting that the community engage in healthy and detailed discussion on the talk page and come to some consensus prior to removing an article that has been up for 6 weeks.I noticed that by way of explanation for the change you had mentioned only “too much POV added with self ref.” I would request you and the rest of the community to point out the elements of the article that are not abiding by wikipedia’s NPOV guidelines, so that they can be discussed and improved. Also, it is not clear to me what is meant by “self ref”. Please provide a more clear explanation of what is meant, so that the critique can be better understood and discussed by the community.Rooneywayne17 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2012 (UTC)Rooneywayne17
- Firstly, its always better to let a user know of starting such a conversation on an article talk page based on their edit. There are a few reasons for the revert. This article is a biographical one on the life of Gunatitanand Swami and not any doctrine he may have promoted so a lot of the information you added would constitute as WP:UNDUE. I say may because it is a highly disputed fact. You have used a book published by BAPS as a major reference point, an organisation which claims to continue Gunatitanand Swamis spiritual heritage, hence a primary reference or self ref. It is OK to use self references per WP:YESPOV for places where no neutral reference is available but using it as the base for your article expansion which is taking undue advantage of the rule. Further if I was to tag all the primary refs you added, the page would be full of such tags. Lastly, you have used several honorifics and weasel words which are not fit for an encyclopedia, it sounds more like language found on a religious website. Whether something was there for 6 weeks or 6 years does not make it right or wrong. On the point of previous references being incorrect, I did not check the previous version, it was the major expansion that caught my attention. Cheers, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I would like to add a note here User:Rooneywayne17, I think User:AroundTheGlobe is attempting to explicate that before adding large bodies to established Wikipedia article, previous discussion and consensus is necessary before publishing the information. User:AroundTheGlobe, I do not think you should have reverted all of User:Rooneywayne17's edits, as not all of it was vandalism. The sources were much better than your sources which led to irrelevant sections or dead links (I am glad he was able to find those issues and update the encyclopedia as it should be done). I think at this point, it would be best if User:AroundTheGlobe adds his issues with the section added by User:Rooneywayne17 within this discussion. I will continue to add my opinion as should User:Rooneywayne17 and any other editors. As most of it was not vandalism, I think it should be unreverted for the time being and allow this be a learning experience for User:Rooneywayne17 who is much newer to Wikipedia. The World 23:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I am going to add a few of my issues with the section (I believe User:AroundTheGlobe is in a different timezone). The intro is far too long and includes quotations. In addition to this, it includes information on the formation of BAPS which is not pertinent to his biography as User:AroundTheGlobe states. But unlike him, I think it's still relevant as he had a major impact on its formation. Maybe an influence section should be added. Overall, it just needs to be organized better. Great information but I think shifting information and removing the clutter from the quotes could make this a very well balanced article. The World 23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- AroundTheGlobe, Wikipedia functions to allow for constructive dialogue in developing articles. I feel that both you and Rooneywayne have contributed to the article over time out of a good faith effort to develop this page. Reverting the entirety of an article without initiating a discussion on the talk page, though, isn’t consistent with that good faith approach. Any of the suggestions for the article you mention here would certainly be ripe topics for discussion and potential edits, yet your response was simply to pull the article altogether and replace it with a version that itself hardly lives up to Wikipedia principles.
- We’d all like to work together to improve this article. I’ve compared the article Rooneywayne posted to the one you reverted to – please allow me to address each of your above contentions individually:
- 1. Rooneywayne’s discussion of the beliefs of BAPS pertaining to Gunatitanand Swami. Your contention is that information on the role Gunatitanand Swami plays in BAPS history and philosophy should not be included in this article under WP:UNDUE standards. Yes, BAPS’ beliefs regarding Gunatitanand Swami are not held by other sects of Swaminarayan Hinduism. Any quality article on Gunatitanand Swami should therefore state this fact and should characterize the differences in opinion between the various sects in a neutral fashion. As I show below, Rooneywayne’s article satisfied this principle, while the article you reverted to did not.
- Further, BAPS’ beliefs regarding Gunatitanand Swami certainly merit the weight they were afforded in Rooneywayne’s article. Professor Raymond Williams’ scholarly work, which your own article cited (albeit inaccurately), makes clear that these very beliefs are held by over one million Swaminarayan devotees, and describes the establishment of BAPS as “the most important event in the modern history of the Swaminarayan movement” (pp. 68 and 54, respectively). Clearly BAPS' view of Gunatitanand Swami warrants significant attention in his biographical article. Your desire to exclude mention of BAPS’ perspective of Gunatitanand Swami and your invocation of WP:UNDUE is thus mistaken. Rather, your comments here and elsewhere that disparage BAPS’ beliefs suggest that you do not give these beliefs equal validity compared to others (WP:GEVAL).
- 2. Sources of References. Rooneywayne has already pointed to the fact that his sources are verifiable and in many cases are published by notable university presses. The citations to BAPS publications that Rooneywayne included only purported to support specific descriptions of BAPS members’ beliefs regarding Gunatitanand Swami – nothing more. Moreover, they did so in complete compliance with WP:YESPOV standards: they presented BAPS beliefs as beliefs, not facts, they made clear that these beliefs are not accepted by all other groups, and they used nonjudgmental language to describe the differences in opinion. As always, other Wikipedia editors are free to add well-referenced details on other sects’ views of Gunatitanand Swami.
- 3. Wording. Any concerns you had over the words used in Rooneywayne’s article should have been raised on this talk page; reverting the article entirely is an inappropriate response. In my opinion, Rooneywayne’s article made clear that certain characterizations of Gunatitanand Swami are held only by members of BAPS and that differences of opinion certainly do exist among the various Swaminarayan fellowships. For instance, his article pointed out in a quite neutral way, “Considerable dissent exists among various Swaminarayan groups regarding Gunatitanand Swami’s status as Akshar.” In contrast, the version you reverted to describes BAPS as a “faction” believing Gunatitanand Swami to be Swaminarayan’s successor. When it comes to Wikipedia NPOV standards, therefore, Rooneywayne’s edits are preferable to your reversion.
- 4. Accuracy of References. AroundTheGlobe, you state that you did not check the previous version that included incorrect references. However, the edit history of this article reveals that you yourself inserted the two erroneous references in question on 18 May 2009.
- Again, I’m not intending to accuse anyone of anything but good faith efforts here, and I look forward to working with everyone to achieve a better article. Thanks. HinduPundit (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Anwerin the 4 points you raised:
- 1. I did not say its UNDUE on Wikipedia, I said its UNDUE on this particular biographical article. Information on his life is pertinent here not of an organization formed after his death. I agree that there needs to be a mention of the BAPS philosophy but there is nowhere the amount of detail required here. There is a different Wikipedia page on the philosophy itself, which Rooneywayne may want to contribute to.
- 2. YESPOV is to be used where there are no secondary sources available to put forward a point of view. Such extravagant use of primary sources is not covered. Further, YESPOV does not cover disputed material, which must be covered by a neutral source .
- 3. My version? Wikipedia articles do not belong to anyone. As World says, some of the additions would be acceptable, but there were far to many issues for me to sit and sort out, hence the revert. As I said, the article would be full of tags if I were to sit and tag each issue. Further, you may find the use of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, Shastriji Maharaj and Bhagatji Maharaj fine but its actually against policy. Proper use would be Swaminarayan, Swami Yagnapusushdas and whatever the actual name of the last guy is. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- 4. If the reference was added in 2009, I cannot be blamed for the website not working in 2012. As for the Williams ref, I no longer have access to that particular book hence cannot comment on it. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- First of all I would like to thank all of you for all the feedback in trying to improve this article, and I do take my work on Wikipedia to be a learning experience, as I am sure we all do. Here are my responses to your comments User:World:
1.Vandalism: User:World , I appreciate and agree with your suggestion that my edits to the article add much needed reliably referenced materials, and thus should be unreverted. However, I would like to get further clarity about one aspect of the reasoning you use in coming to this conclusion. Your statement that “most of User:Rooneywayne17’s edits was not vandalism” and “not all of User:Rooneywayne17’s edits are vandalism” give me pause, since that means that you feel that some of my edits were vandalism. I am surprised by those statements and I would like to explore them further since most wikipedians take charges of vandalism very seriously. According to WP: VANDALISM, there are very clear guidelines on what can and cannot be called vandalism. In short, any good faith effort to improve Wikipedia cannot be construed as vandalism, even if you don’t agree with it, and thus, it should not be deleted without discussion and consensus. I would assert that everything about my article should make it clear that this was absolutely a good faith effort at improving a Wikipedia article whose development (from original research to legitimate Wikipedia article) had stagnated for some time. Thus, I feel that in any of my edits, there was no element of vandalism as described by WP:VANDALISM. However, I acknowledge that both you and User:AroundTheGlobe have been involved in Wikipedia for more years than me, so I guess you would not bandy about the serious charge of vandalism lightly. So, if either of you feel that any part of my edits can be legitimately termed “vandalism” I would humbly ask you to point out which specific edits you are referring to along with citations of Wikipedia guidelines explaining how those specific edits qualify as vandalism. However, if after my comment here, you feel that I am correct, and that you have made the implication of vandalism in error, I would appreciate a clear affirmation from you on that point.
2.Deleting Another User’s Edits and Use of Talk Page: User:World and User:AroundTheGlobe both make the point that legitimate Wikipedia edits should not be deleted without use of the talk page to explain one’s rationale. I completely agree with both users on this point, as Wikipedia guidelines on this point are very clear. But as I understand it, I have followed Wikipedia guidelines on this issue, and I think User:World agrees with me on this point, as he unrevereted back to my edits. Allow me to explain my reasoning, and let me know if I have not followed Wikipedia guidelines correctly. As I understand it, Wikipedia guidelines dictate that before deleting legitimate user edits, one should post issues that one has with that article onto the talk page to see if there is any discussion on that point. However, Wikipedia guidelines also state that original research and any material lacking inline citation to a reliable source may be deleted straight away (WP:UNSOURCED). So, as I started to work on improving the Gunatitanand Swami article, I first checked out the references in the original article, which had been added by User:AroundTheGlobe. There were only two references in the entire article, and both of them , as explained in my post on 21 August are incorrect references. Thus, the entire article has no references and is therefore unsubstantiated “original research”, unsuitable for an encyclopedia. To remedy this situation, I set out to develop a well-researched article that follows Wikipedia policies. Once I completed that effort, I posted a note on the talk page asking for people’s input on the edits I had made. As it turned out, it didn’t seem like there were any editors interested in discussing the issue, since for six weeks, no one said anything, until User:AroundTheGlobe deleted the article without any sort of discussion or post on the talk page. So, in looking at my actions, I had removed the original research from this article and explained as much on the talk page when I made the changes. On the other hand, User:AroundTheGlobe deleted well-researched material without first discussing it on the talk page. So, as I understand it, and it appears that User:World and User:HinduPundit agree, I was not in the wrong in what I had done, although User:AroundTheGlobe may have initially erred in deleting the edits. But that is just for me to understand for the future. For this effort, I think that this healthy open-minded discussion will definitely lead to a better, more complete article, that can hopefully one day work up to good-article and featured article status with everyone’s help.
3.Introduction: User:World suggests the introduction is too long and includes quotes, which it should not. If you can point me to a Wikipedia page with guidelines about proper introductions, I would much appreciate it and would work toward incorporating those guidelines in the article.
4.Influence Section: You mention the possible addition of an influence section, which I think is a good idea. I had a Legacy and Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar section which both described various aspects of his influence, but if that is confusing, both can be put under a larger Influence section.
I feel that a lot of your comments were addressed by both User: World and User: HinduPundit. Here’s my two cents:
1.You mentioned honorifics and weasel words. It would be useful if you could point out all the places where there are words that you had an issue with so that they can be discussed here and corrected.
2.As I pointed out before, I posted on the talk page prior to my large edit and detailed out what I intended to do. I also asked for comments and discussion to help improve the article. I’m glad that is happening now and the article can only improve as a result.
3.You reverted to the older version of the article and other editors and I have commented on that already. Additionally, however, according to WP: NPOV, “there is usually no need to immediately delete text that can instead be rewritten as necessary over time. Obvious exceptions are articles about living people or clear vandalism, but generally there is no need for text to meet the highest standards of neutrality today if there's a reasonable chance of getting there. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content.” Therefore I agree with User: World and User: HinduPundit that the article should not have been removed. Instead, a better way to move forward is to engage in healthy discussion, like we are doing now and improve the article.
4.Issues of Doctrine within Biographical Article: Regarding User:AroundTheGlobe’s point about WP:UNDUE (that a biographical article must not include talk of doctrine), I agree with User:HinduPundit. When the biography is about a person who was a theologian, in that a major portion of his life was spent of establishing a doctrine, any biographical article that ignored doctrine would be incomplete. Many featured/Good- biography articles have large sections on theology or doctrine (see John Calvin and others). The information on BAPS is relevant in this article because a very large number of people (As pointed out by User: HinduPundit) believe in his status as Akshar, and secondary sources have expressed this as well. That is his notability is contingent on what he is believed to be ontologically. Similarly, a large number of people dispute this fact. Therefore, even though this is a biographical article, these views must be presented in order to show Gunatitanand Swami’s influence on Swaminaryan Hinduism. If you look at the Martin Luther article for example, his theology/beliefs are mentioned and discussed even though not everyone believed in them because it showcased the influence he had on Christianity. I strived to do something similar in the version that I had put up. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)Rooneywayne17
- I am delighted that we have started a discussion. To clarify User:Rooneywayne17, your edits are not vandalism. Good faith edits, but many of them may not follow WP:POV guidelines as User:AroundTheGlobe puts it. WP:MOS may give you ideas on how long or short the introduction should be and what type of information should be included. Hope that helps. The World 17:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Im going to keep this as short as possible as Id rather spend the limited time I have for this editing rather than bickering.
- 1. Vandalism: Your claim of UNSOURCED would not stand because there were inline references for information removed. If you felt that particular statements/references were dubious you should have tagged them with a relevant tag and detailed it on the talk page. I do see you left a message on the TP but it was very general nothing specific about info removed, removing it without this could be considered Vandalism.
- 2. Issues I have with the present version:
- A. See WP:WEASEL and WP PEACOCK for details on what language is encyclopedic and what is not. Iv already explained honorofics above. The current language as I mentioned is one meant for a religious website not Wikipedia.
- B. UNDUE. It is too biased in favour of one organisation which was formed after his death, hence I consider it biased rather than well-researched. A typical biography such as John Calvin which you yourself have pointed out have information from during the lifespan of the person and not after. See Swaminarayan (a GA) as well, there is one small section dedicated to his legacy and majority of the article dedicated to his lifespan. Compare it to previous versions of Swaminarayan (pre GA) and you will get what I am saying.
- C. Use of primary references for disputed facts. I strongly object to this use. Primary sources should be used sparingly when secondary sources are not available and further, for non-disputed facts. For now, Iv tagged the primary references on the article to show the extent of use.
- User: World thanks for the clarification. I will look at WP:MOV and take the necessary steps towards improving the introduction.
I had a few other comments.
1. Self-References: User:AroundTheGlobe had previously mentioned that the references used were Primary or Self references. If you look at that Wikipedia guidelines on “Self-references” (WP:SELF), it’s main concern is to prohibit the mention of the Wikipedia Encyclopedia within an article. Thus, according to stated Wikipedia policy, User:AroundTheGlobe’s assertion that there are self-references in this article is erroneous.
2. Non-Primary Source Needed Tags: I would offer further clarification on the issue of Primary Sources used as references in this article. User:AroundTheGlobe has tagged many of the references in the article with “non-primary source needed”. Clicking on that takes me to WP:PRIMARY, which offers some clear definitions on what a primary source is. Two very clear definitions, copied directly from Note  in WP:PRIMARY state:
The University of California, Berkeley library offers this definition: "… Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied, or were created at a later date by a participant in the events being studied (as in the case of memoirs) and they reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer."
Duke University, Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents." The defining elements of a primary source, according to Wikipedia are clear, they are – 1)created during the period being studied, 2) or created after that period by a person who was present during the period being studies.
As I looked through the sources User:AroundTheGlobe has marked as primary sources in the Gunatitanand Swami article, it became clear that the vast majority of the tags have been put in error. The various books on Gunatitanand Swami used as references in this article were written more than a century after Gunatitanand Swami’s death. These books rely on a mix of primary and secondary sources themselves. Thus, they are secondary sources, not primary sources. This is in line with the definition of Secondary sources on WP:PRIMARY. If there is still some confusion, User:AroundTheGlobe may wish to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_sources to get a more accurate understanding of what can be termed a primary source. I believe that there are only a few references in the article that are actually primary sources, (the Vachnamrut and Swami ni Vato, etc.) but those are used entirely within the Wikipedia guidelines in that “A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge.” Thus, pending other editor’s thoughts, I would remove the [non-primary source needed] tags that have been put up in error.
3.Honorifics: With regard to the use of the term Bhagwan I agree that whenever there is a mention of Swaminarayan in a biographical sense the prefix bhagwan should not be used. However, there are some other nuances in the Wikipedia policy about this that need to be explored at a later stage. For now I understand what User:AroundTheGlobe has pointed out and will make corrections where appropriate. With regard to Shastriji Maharaj and Bhagatji Maharaj MOS:HONORIFICS advises that Where a honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found without it, it should be included. A prime example of this is the Pope. The religious community and academic scholars almost always exclusively refer to him as Pope Benedict and not Joseph Ratzinger. This is also documented in WP:NCCL . A similar situation occurs in the use of Gautama Buddha for Prince Siddhartha. Here his actual name is Siddhartha whereas Gautama and Buddha are both technically honorifics. However, in reality both honorifics had become his name since that was how he was addressed by everyone, and thus it is appropriate to use that in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia policy and practice.In this case, User:AroundTheGlobe states his opinion that: “Further, you may find the use of Bhagwan Swaminarayan, Shastriji Maharaj and Bhagatji Maharaj fine but its actually against policy. Proper use would be Swaminarayan, Swami Yagnapusushdas and whatever the actual name of the last guy is.”I think there are two issues with User:AroundTheGlobe’s opinion. First, as I have explained in the preceding paragraph, Wikipedia policy allows for Shastriji Maharaj, Bhagatji Maharaj, etc, since most people identify them as such, so that these honorifics have become their names (like Mother Theresa). Prof Williams also states that Shastri Yagnapurushdas is commonly referred to as Shastriji Maharaj. Other academic scholars like Kim and Waghorne also follow this convention and use the term Shastriji Maharaj or Yogiji Maharaj. The inscriptions under the various murtis in Swaminarayan Mandirs also use Shastriji Maharaj or Yogiji Maharaj as their respective names.
Other well-developed articles on Indian gurus, like Maharshi Mahesh Yogi, also use the so-called “Honorific” as a name, which functionally it is. The second issue I have with User:AroundTheGlobe’s opinion that “Proper use would be Swaminarayan, Swami Yagnapusushdas and whatever the actual name of the last guy is.” is that the statement contradicts itself. If Wikipedia actually dictated that the name Shastriji Maharaj could not be used, but it would have to be Swami Yagnapusushdas; then by the same logic, Wikipedia articles could not use Swaminarayan, but would have to use Swami Sahajanand, since both Swami Yagnapurushdas and Swami Sahajanand were the names given to them upon ordination. But according to wikipedia’s policies outlined above, Swaminarayan, Gautama Buddha, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II are all ok, as is, therefore, Shastriji Maharaj and Bhagatji Maharaj.
I will look at WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL as pointed out by User:AroundTheGlobe but, as I had stated above, I would ask any editors to point three or four examples of weasel words that have allegedly been used in this article, so it is clear what they are referring to, and any changes I make are thus appropriate. I will also begin making improvements to the Akshar section of the article as suggested by User:World.
One last comment. I don’t think all the discussions here should be seen as bickering, but rather I believe that such healthy discussions and exchanges can only serve to make us all better Wikipedia users and editors. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I had a few quick comments.Your assessment on User:Rooneywayne17's usage of primary/secondary sources seems incorrect. The books, being written much time after the passing of Gunatitanand Swami, constitute a secondary source, making them acceptable, as the Wikipedia policy states that “Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source.” The few cases where primary sources are used are also legitimate, and do not have to be backed up by a secondary source if a fact is being presented, without interpretation, as is done in this article. However, there are a few peacock words such as brilliant, greatest, glory (In the As a Sadhu section) that User:Rooneywayne17 could address, and should focus on. Bballerparth (talk) 02:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Bballerparth
- I have reworked the lead section based on User: World's comments and WP:MOS. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
- I am reworking the other sections based on the comments that were discussed here. I have added additional references and removed any weasel words that I saw. Comments and suggestions are welcome.Rooneywayne17 (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Anonymous User 126.96.36.199’s recent edits, which seem aimed at discrediting the views discussed in the article by stating repeatedly that they are “open to bias,” are unsubstantiated and unverified. As per WP:Verifiability standards, “any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.”
More generally, I would ask this anonymous user to engage in a good faith discussion on this talk page before making such wide-ranging edits. A constructive dialogue about improving and developing this article is always welcome, but I request that you do so under a registered account name in order to facilitate such collaboration.
- I agree with your assessment User:HinduPundit. The edits made by Anonymous User 188.8.131.52 have no citations and do not appear to be constructive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rooneywayne17 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- With regards to the article in general, I have added various references and removed weasel words wherever I could find them. Certain contentious sentences have also been deleted as discussed previously on this page. I believe more community discussion and dialogue is required before the banner can be removed.Rooneywayne17 (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- In its current state, the article has a formal tone, and the religious terminology is explained in a clear, well-substantiated manner. Therefore I think it would be appropriate to remove the tone template from the banner at the top of the page at this time. Anastomoses (talk) 03:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
One or more anonymous user(s) using various Detroit, MI area IP addresses (184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124) has been making the same edits to this article and a few related articles. I have reverted them as they are incorrectly referenced and written in an impartial tone. I encourage the user(s) to enter the discussion by posting on this talk page and reviewing Wikipedia's policies so that we can work together to continue developing the article. Anastomoses (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
BAPS Modified Version
The edited portion at the end of the article continues to be removed by some overly sensitive member of the faction for whatever reason. Swamini Vato is considered a moderate level writings in the Original faith giving the Vachamrut, Shikshapatri and Satsangi Jeevan more importance while BAPS gives this more importance in favor of the last mention writings. Since this is such an imporant writing, it needs to be acknowledged to the public (as it has by BAPS, I do not see why this cult member does not want this to be on wiki?) that changes have been made based on reseach. Do not change this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
To Anonymous user(s) using Detroit area IP addresses at Wayne State U. (188.8.131.52, 184.108.40.206, 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168, et al.), The text of this article and related articles on Swamini Vato clearly states the contributions of 5 chapters by Sadhu Balmukundas and 2 additional chapters by Krishnaji Ada, which are specifically accepted by BAPS and some other denominations. The link to the BAPS website subsection you are inserting has already been cited to support this simple fact (Ref. 95, "Swamini Vato"). Your use of this same citation, however, clearly does not support your biased accusations of "altered wordings" and implications regarding BAPS' "intentions." Therefore, please refrain from posting unsupported attributions (WP:SUBSTANTIATE), contentious labels (WP:LABEL), or other improperly referenced material (WP:V) with a non-neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) as all misinformation will continue to be reverted. In the interest of constructive dialogue, I encourage you to review Wikipedia's policies and join the collaboration under a registered account name. Anastomoses (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)