Talk:Pramukh Swami Maharaj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
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.
Note icon
This article was last assessed in March 2012.
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Hinduism / Vaishnavism / Krishnaism / Swaminarayan (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 Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject icon A version of this article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to help in the drive to improve articles. Visit our project page if you're interested in joining! If you have questions, please direct them to our talk page.


Hey people. As this section (discussion page) is for IMPROVING articles, I would like to take a moment to discuss having a source for any information on the article (page). If we want Pramukh Swami Maharaj to be taken seriously, as a person and an article, then we have to do the service of actually adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. We need to reference information where possible, whether it's on the web or in a book. If you're not sure how to cite something, feel free to check out the following:

Other things to be wary of when we add information to the article:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - We cannot add words to show the true greatness of Pramukh Swami Maharaj as the devotees of BAPS would understand, simply by adding our thoughts. We need to use resources to help show why we believe what we believe (which is where referencing comes in). Also, if we continue to add whatever we think, people that disagree will do the same, leaving a stain on the article.
  • Tone - We need to make sure the article is generally neat, and clean. A Messy article is bound to have messy information, and will be sure to leave a messy impression.
  • Discussing - Now I don't mean goshti, per se. I mean that this page need to be made use of for major changes, and teamwork is required if we want the article to end up looking tidy, as oppose to having a Rambo come along and change everything to what he/she feels is best, not realising that the article is rubbish in unforeseen ways, simply not realised by the editor (aka Rambo).

As I mentioned, we need to make sure we adhere to Wikipedia methods if we want a respectable article, and to have a respectable article improves peoples knowledge of what's in the article. If I had the time, I'd completely re-work the article, but I'm tied up with revision and the mammoth Akshardham (Delhi) article clean-up (if you are interested in my progress, see my progress here). Also, feel free to contact me on editing articles better. I'm not great as an editor, but I know enough to make articles good.

So I'll finish off with a clear message; make sure you take the article seriously, in order for others to take it seriously also. Thank you. -- Harish - 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


My last edits didn't rm vandalism but irrelevant information    Juthani1   tcs 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Paradox and Future Successor Section[edit]

User:Swamifraud's edit adding a section labeled “Paradox” violates principles of neutrality and demonstrates that Swamifaud has engaged in inappropriate WP:Cherrypicking with regard to his/her citations. In citing to Raymond Williams' An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (Citation 67 a, b, c), Swamifraud misrepresents this reference's actual text in order to selectively present a biased point of view. The actual text of the Williams source, on pages 94-95, reads:

“The paradox is that Pramukh Swami is revered as the manifestation of the eternal akshar even though he does not claim divinity for himself or demand such honors. His role forbids such claims because pride, self-praise, and ostentation are forbidden by the rules of conduct for sadhus.

When I asked him if his physical body is divine, he said that it is not his place to say. He seems never to praise himself or to demand worship. He maintained that his purpose is not to lead people to worship him, but to point them to correct worship of Swaminarayan. He worships Swaminarayan and gives reverence to his predecessors. The image of Swaminarayan is always before him, and he directs the worship to the image. All garlands and gifts presented to him are first presented before the image. When there is the chanting of the list of the spiritual hierarchy, the guruparampara, he stops with the name of his immediate predecessor, Yogiji Maharaj, or chants "Narayana" while the other devotees shout "Pramukh Swami Maharaj." Followers see this as an evidence of the humility and self-denial that are appropriate to a devotee, a covering of his true radiance, and this inspires them to shower him with even greater honor and worship.”

A comparison of this source to User:Swamifraud's edits reveals numerous instances of misrepresentation:

1. The first sentence of Swamifraud's edits misstates the Williams text in order to imply that Pramukh Swami's role within BAPS as the manifestation of Akshar is a “forbidden claim,” whereas the actual Williams text merely describes a perceived contrast between BAPS devotees' belief in this regard and the observation that Pramukh Swami does not claim divinity or demand honors for himself.
2. The third sentence again implies that Pramukh Swami claims divinity for himself, whereas Williams' actual text states the exact opposite in multiple instances (see paragraph 2 of the above Williams excerpt).
3. The fifth sentence improperly uses a quote from the Williams text to refer to something unrelated to the actual text. User:Swamifraud's edit couples a reference to murtis of Pramukh Swami in BAPS mandirs with an ostensibly relevant quote from Williams: “Followers see this as evidence of humility and self-denial...etc.” In reality, this quote from Williams page 95 refers to Pramukh Swami's practice of declining to chant his name along with those of his predecessors.

User:Swamifraud's misuse of quotations and paraphrasing constitutes improper WP:Cherrypicking and does so in a way that violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. More fundamentally, Swamifraud's addition of a new section entitled “Paradox” itself presents a biased opinion that is inappropriate for this article. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV makes clear that such claims cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if they were facts. Characterizing Pramukh Swami's role in BAPS as a “paradox” applies a loaded label to Swamifraud's mis-cited assertions. These edits therefore detract from the article's quality, which is why I have removed them. HinduPundit (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Pramukh Swami looks like he is going to pass any day now so we should prepare for the out pour of vandals by adding a successor section. I understand if you can't contribute as that may be a difficult topic for you. Swamifraud (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

User:HinduPundit is correct in their assessment of the errors regarding the Paradox section. User:Swamifraud's talk page post above does not address any of these errors, but seems to be baiting User:HinduPundit. I am removing the Paradox section, and request that it not be inserted until User:HinduPundit's explanation above is addressed. Sacredsea (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No it has been addressed. You seem to have a problem with a dying old man's paradox section on a public website. (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:SacredSea's decision to remove the Paradox section. User:HinduPundit has raised several glaring errors in this section. User:SwamiFraud and user: have failed to address any of these issues. Voicing an opinion on Pramukh Swami's health is not a relevant consideration in this discussion. Accordingly, I'm removing the section. Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Along the same lines, the addition of the future successor section seems irrelevant if it is only saying that it is not clear who the future successor is. It would only be relevant if there was some established clarity on the future successor. If we were to follow the logic of the editor who added this section, then every leader of any organization would have to have a section titled “future successor”on their Wikipedia page only to say that the future successor is unknown. Thus, until there is some verifiable reference on who the designated future successor is, I’m removing the section. I'd like to hear what other editors feel about this.Sacredsea (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, User:Swamifraud and User:'s comments above violate wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living people, particularly regarding lack of neutral point of view and verifiability. The tone is also not dispassionate, as the editors seem to have imported off-wiki disputes into wikipedia judging from their talk page posts in the BAPS article where they are avowedly antagonistic to the group and persons about whom they are editing. Both users have persistently violated this policy and that could result in them being blocked from editing, since such actions are harmful to wikipedia. So, I would advise such users to desist from editing BAPS-related pages unless they can edit with neutrality.Sacredsea (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

User:SwamiFraud and user: have clearly made edits without adhering to several Wikipedia policies and as a result I think the removal of the paradox section is warranted. There is a glaring lack of a neutral point of view in their edits and the persistent edit-warring they engage in is doing nothing to improve this article. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Abuse Allegations[edit]

Hello All,

I am looking for a respectful discussion. I have had previous issues with this group and my account but I am cleared with administrators.

In 2013, Pramukh was suspected for sexually abusing two other gurus. According to the conversation on the talk page in the past, these accusations should not be placed on in a Controversy section in Wikipedia page because he is “relatively unknown outside of India” but in this website of the group, it states that “Spread across the world, the BAPS Global Network is composed of more than 1100 mandirs and 3,850 centers.” In the drop down list there is over 100 locations in the USA and UK and they are building the world’s largest temple in New Jersey. So it is safe to say that this he is well known to millions of people around the world as a deity and guru. The sect has also responded to the allegations and multiple third party sites verify the accusations.

So the point is that I believe that a controversy section with these allegations it is warranted with the sect’s response to the allegations. This should be included on the Wikipedia page unless there are greater reasons that I am missing not to. Please let me know. I will write the section in the article

The criteria for notability: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

The criteria for Biographies of living persons accused of a crime states that only if the person is considered unknown, then editors should give serious consideration to not include material in any article suggesting that the person has accused of committing a crime.


Swamifraud (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP you cannot add some useless allegations that have no effect on his life/biography. He was arrested? He was jailed? He has been convicted? If your answer is a NO, then don't add it again. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry bud, I read WP:CRIME inside out and he meets the criteria for notability and have provided several sources of the allegations. Do not revert my edit unless you have actual legitimate reason to or else that is vandalism.Swamiblue (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
You have not read anything and you are still as disruptive like you were before and actually worse since you have came up with the whole new policy that your edits should not be reverted unless they are vandalism. None of these sources say that these allegations are true other than the 2 involved gurus who have shown no evidence. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point. I am not clear if you have read It clearly states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." How about allowing some further discussion with other users and admins before reverting my edit with out merit?Swamiblue (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Where did I told you to create a new article? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That was just more information regarding alleged criminal acts. Here are some more news articles and information:

Swamiblue (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Parroting adds nothing to credibility of an allegation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
So two ex-members made allegations and that's it? Nothing further? If so, doesn't belong in article. --NeilN talk to me 09:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


Is there a reason why this article goes completely against WP:LASTNAME? If not, I will be doing a search and replace. --NeilN talk to me 10:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I read the policy and agree that you should do a find and replace.Swamiblue (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

NeilN, I think you're referring to the "Early Years" section, which uses his given name in discussing his life before initiation into the monastic fold. Doing so is warranted here, in light of WP:LASTNAME's recognition that using the subject's given name rather than the surname is appropriate in certain cultural or geographic contexts. Here, religious figures in India are commonly known by their first names in reference to the time period before they were ordained or changed their name. For example, the biographical article for Swami Vivekanand (a GA-class article) uses his given name extensively, throughout the "Early Life" section. Similarly, the article for Mother Theresa refers to her by her given name in discussing her life before she took her religious vows. Accordingly, referring to Pramukh Swami Maharaj as Shantilal with respect to the period of time before he was initiated into the monastic life and given a new name would be proper in this context. HinduPundit (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. User:NeilN, would you be able to change it?

Swamiblue (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)