Talk:Radha Madhav Dham

Name

Name of Barsana Dham wikipedia page was changed to Radha Madhav Dham in order to reflect the name change of the ashram. Biography of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati and 2011 trial section were moved to wikipedia page on Prakashanand Saraswati. This page is about the temple only, and not about a particular patron or member of the temple. 86.45.240.67 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of controversy section as per Prakashanand's conviction of indecency with a child, and name change

• This is the place for any debate on the above subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above editor is editing in good faith. After reducing the article to a stub on the pretence of a name change, they nominated it for deletion. A peacock tag was added twice with no explanation. Now, they are dumping the majority of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati into this article, which is plainly not about him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Afd concluded that this is the same organization that Swami Prakashanand Saraswati founded. Since he, and Barsana Dham, have received substantial attention for the indecency with a child incident, as well as a name change - apparently in response to the indecency with a child incident - the information is part of the history of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. That's like saying if the CEO of Megacorp was charged with murder, then a substantial portion of Megacorp's article should be about the details of the murder. You've been around long enough to know that articles are focused on the subject, which in this case is the organization. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and neither of these state that this material should be removed. This material, while it needs to be edited, is part of the history of this subject. To remove it would be misleading. This organization experienced an event (it's founder, at this location - which received substantial media attention for the event, was convicted of indecency with a child) and received substantial media attention for it. In addition, the "name change" (due to the "indecency with a child" incident) also received substantial news coverage from reliable sources. As such, this material should be included in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not in good faith whatsoever. The article is about the temple, not about a particular member/former member of the temple. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has his own article. Why should the material be duplicated into two articles? Also note that Ism Schism has nominated every article relating to this temple for deletion - only to recreate it when there is some negative story in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to include a section called "Controversy" when there is no controversy related to the subject of the article. The controversy was about a particular person. To say that "the "name change" (due to the "indecency with a child" incident)" is a false statement, since there are no reliable sources that state the name change had anything to with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The founder, and especially his impact on the temple (and responsibility for the name change), is relevant. For more information, please see - Barsana Dham Ashram, Once Home to Wanted Felon Guru Prakashanand Saraswati, Changes Name and Appoints a New Leader -- Another Accused Rapist, and With guru on the lam, ashram changes name Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK again. This article is about the temple. Rather than appearing to be asserting your own WP:POV, consider creating biographical articles about the personnel involved and leaving them out of the temple article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Comment The founder of the temple, his activities at the temple, and their coverage in multiple reliable sources (which led to the change in name) is very relevant to the article. To remove such information would be misleading at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article is about a temple, not about a particular member of the temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply This is not about a member - but the temple and its founder, and his activities at the temple, which led to his conviction and the temple changing names/boards/etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply Its not about "the temple and its founder", the article is about a temple. The one who founded it 21 years ago has a separate article. Your edit history and discussions have shown that you don't understand wikipedia policy whatsoever, and you are intentionally trolling. Anyone else have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a frequent misunderstanding of Wikipedia WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK policy. It is not our work to expose drama - Wikipedia is not a tabloid - and it can sometimes be very difficult to remain neutral and free of bias when one article attempts to address distinctly separate core subjects and their related issues, especially in the kind of article that depicts positive and negative aspects of the subject(s). Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. In the temple article however, one one sentence is more than enough enough about founders, adepts, or employees, and what they have or have not done. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Biographical information should therefore be the subject of separate articles that should nevertheless not become POV forks in order to satisfy one opinion over another. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Before accusing editors of trolling, could editors please relieve the confusion by correctly indenting their posts with colons (:), signing them, and completing an edit summary. This is not a debate and there is no need to proceed each post with a bold Comment or Reply. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To put Ism Schizm's edits in context, please look at the article New Vrindavan, of which Ism Schizm has been an editor because it is a community within the spiritual group he follows. The founder of that community was also convicted for something, and has his own article, yet Ism Schizm has not put an entire section called "controversy" in the New Vrindavan article because that article is about the group, not about the founder. What is the difference in this article? The only difference is that Ism Schizm has a demonstratable bias against the subject of this article and using it to coatrack his dislike of the founder. Can we also add a section called "Criminal conviction and imprisonment" (from [1] and place it in the New Vrindavan article? Probably not, because they are two seperate subjects. I'm comparing the two articles, only to show that Ism Schizm knows that a huge section on controversy related to a founder of an organization has no place in an article solely about the organization itself. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account feedback on this page, you can propose the changes you'd like to see or be bold and edit the article itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the New Vrindavan article, of which Ism Schizm is an editor, doesn't even give a mention of the conviction of its founder - just that he "left" it. At most, this article should have a passing mention of it or not at all - especially since he appears to no longer be a member of that organization. A huge section called "controvesry" is inappropriate when the controversy is about one person who is longer involved in the organization. It would be like having a section on the Monika Lewisky scandal (whether it was true or not) in the article about the United States. For the record, there seems to be a whole body of evidence that the trial against Prakashanand was a sham: including the fact that the jury consisted of a hand-picked group of people, including a former disgrunteled employee of the temple, and not neutral members of the public, but that is irrelevent to this discussion until further details emerge. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support removal of the section now and then a discussion of two or three sentences to add about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned the issue in [2]. I think we should leave it until we get a more unanimous consensus from more people. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get "unanimous" consensus (but I might be pleasantly surprised) but we'll get consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal After looking at the New Vrindavan article, I think it could be used as a good model. The section under discussion is too long, and not placed into context historically. So, here is what I propose. A few sentences could sum up this material, the controversy and name change, within the context of the temple's history - from creation to the present form/name/management/guru. This could be done under a section titled History, which would detail the creation, and evolution of this organization/place up to the present. I am willing to work on an objective section that would deal with the milestones of this community/temple's history. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not believe that you can write anything objective about this organization. Whether you know it or not, this organization has suffered decades of a brutal smear campaign from your organization (ISKCON), for whatever reason, both in India and internationally. I feel that you are caught up in the same sectarianism. There are some hate groups on facebook relating to this organization, and a huge majority of the members are from your organization. In the past, there were were numerous blogs and discussion groups run by devotees from your organization, and I believe it was reading those blogs that gave those three women the idea to come forward and make false accusations against Prakashanand Saraswati. Some people from your organization have done more damage to this organization than you will ever understand, and I don't understand why. Your edits on facebook only confirm that there is a bias somewhere. But this is talk page so you are free to write something if you want, and neutral editors can come to a consensus - if it abides by wikipedia's guidelines. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Just because I study a religious organization (and I study many) does not mean that I am a member. Do you have any constructive comments to add concerning this article? If so, we can begin working towards a consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather wait for more people to join this discussion first to get a nearly unanimous, and more diversified consensus about the topics so far discussed and to prevent the possibility of the page staying a coatrack and an attack page, or a page which is any less encyclopedic than related pages on wikipedia. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. In the meantime, I will work on a time-line marking the milestones of the subject, backed by reliable sources, that I will propose - and then we can work from there. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

86, since this is an obscure topic it is quite likely that few (or no) other editors will join. I would suggest that you come up with some specific article changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN in that "some specific article changes" should be created/proposed - this is the place to engage in such discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I will come up with some suggestions tomorrow. The main issue is not to have an entire section on controversy, when the controversy was about a particular person and not about the subject of the article. A neutral, one sentence mention of the conviction of the founder will suffice - e.g. "The founder was convicted and given a 280 year sentence based on the testimony of three women, who said they were groped 15 years earlier." For balance, controversy surrounding the handling of the trial should be mentioned in one or two sentences - mainly it was widely reported in multiple reliable sources that evidence went missing from both the police station and from the DA's office - evidence that was considered crucial for the Swami's defense. e.g. [3] One sentence about the conviction, one sentence about the missing evidence, and one sentence about his disappearance should be enough, and one sentence about the name change. Also, there is no proof that the name change was directly because of the conviction of the founder, just that they coincided with each other. Ism Schism, you have indicated that you want the article to be some kind of exposé, and you have a history of editing articles related to a "rival" organization, which in my opinion disqualifies you from participating in it - but I will trust that you realize that's not what wikipedia is about. Considering your edit history, I am doubtful that your interest in the article is about creating a valid encyclopedia article, and I think its to push an agenda. But feel free to prove the wikipedia community wrong. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to both your suggestions and working with you. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am drawing up a new section called "Management" or "Ashram Management" 86.46.47.195 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what I propose for the new section called "Management": The temple was founded in 1990 by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. It is part of a worldwide organization called Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat. 82 year old Swami Prakashanand Saraswati was convicted and sentenced in absentia in 2011 for 280 years based on statements by three women that they were groped as teenagers 17 years earlier. Controversy arose when evidence which was crucial to the defence went missing from the Sheriff's office evidence room and the DAs office before the trial. (Update today:) US Marshals don't know where he is. In April, 2011 the organization's name was changed to JKP Radha Madhav Dham and a governing body, led by board president Raj Goel, was put in place to run the organization. As well as a management group, the spiritual activities of the organization are overseen by a local sanyasi leadership. The sanyasi spiritual teacher of Radha Madhav Dham is Swami Nikhilanand. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

reference cleanup needed

If an article uses the (preferred) <:ref> tag citation method, the footnotes should NOT be double cited by the (paren) citation method as well. Its looks really horrendous. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and false tagging by User:Ism_schism

A user called User:Ism_schism is repeatedly adding tags and where they are not due. It is obvious, if you look at his history of editing the page that he has a personal agenda with that page. Please see the [4]] delete discussion which he initiated a few months back. The result was keep, but a read of the discussion page will show what his agenda is. Please also see the Talk Page for the article. The organization changed its name (from Barsana Dham to Radha Madhav Dham) back in March/April. It is still the same organization, but under a different name. This was discussed on the deletion page, as well as the discussion page. It had been decided that all sources relating to the old name, were relevant for the new name. Well, this past week, the user has been adding irrelevant and disruptive tags. For example, see his most recent edit from yesterday: [5]

- The source says that it is the one of the largest Hindu Temple in the USA, both under the old name, as well as under the new name. Harvard Plurism Project. Yet the user added a tag.

- The source says that "Approximately 1000 families attend Radha Madhav Dham. Barsana Dham Hindu Temple. 96% of these are Indian, the remaining 4% being Westerners and people of Caribbean descent." The source uses the old name, but it had been discussed on the delete page that it was the same organization/temple so any sources using the old name are relevant to the new name. Yet, the user added a tag. It is in the source, but under the old name, and furthermore, the user had been involved in the discussion about the name change.

- The user added tags to most of the festivals celebrated by the organization. See Maha Shivratri, Jhulan Leela, Radha Ashtmi, 'Govardhan Puja. Not only are they in the source, but they are in the source under the new name. So it was blatant false tagging. The source in this case was Harvard Plurism Project.

- The user added tag to the sentence "National eye camps and mother/child welfare programs also have been established throughout India, providing free eye exams, cataract surgery and polio vaccines to those in need." The link in question is dead, [6], so it is dishonest to say , as he had not seen the original article. As it happens I have a backup link which I will add, but then he will just find something else to tag.

- He falsely added a tag here "The organization was selected to represent Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in 1993.Source: Nevans-Pederson, M. Nov 16, 2002. Seeking Divine unity through Hinduism. The Telegraph-Herald.

There are many more recent examples of gratuitous or blatantly false tagging. Here is one more example, [7] - He claimed that the phrase "It is the oldest Hindu Temple in Texas." was not backed up by the source. The source stated "the oldest Hindu Temple in the Lone Star State" which means the same thing.

This user has a history of edits on Radha Madhav Dham and Prakashanand Saraswati (the founder of the organization) which seems to show that they have a bias, want to portray the subject in the worst way possible, have a (

) (or some variant) at the top of the article (to diminish the credibility of the article). The article is extremely well sourced, it seems dishonest to add a

to it, even if there was one or two areas which needed improving. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also please see the users Talk Page to see accusations by other people about the user's edits to this article. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Same user has added another "not in source" tag where it was not relevent: See: [8] 109.255.71.203 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)