Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Criticism

If at all, this criticism should go under Swaminarayan Sampradaya and not on the section of Swaminarayan: The Swaminarayan faith has been linked to patriarchal class structures that subjugate women.[1] Members of the faith are defensive of the fact that some practices seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible.[2]

And the next criticism should go into Swaminarayan Hinduism as it complies to that section: (Note: since the citation itself is not from Swaminarayan's time but modern times in Swaminarayan Hinduism) However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people.[3]

I deleted: "In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry." There is no citation. (Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC))

Despite the reforms for women within the sect, according to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugate women."[4] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women." [5] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible. No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men. [6] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women.[7] Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations." [8] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship. [9][10]

Similar issues with caste by Swaminarayan has been recorded. [11] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower. [12] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable. [13] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead.[14]

Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection.[15] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world.[16] Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticized for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks." In the views of Swami Dayananda, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers.[17]

What are some ways we can improve this?141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

First: STOP YOUR EDIT WARRING! You cannot work towards a compromise if you are blocked for edit warring PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 05:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Follow your own advice. Discuss BEFORE deleting cited information.141.217.233.69 (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

You are the one making the changes, you are the one with the burden of proof, YOU are the one that needs to discuss. I am merely enforcing policy by keeping the article at a stable version while the issues are discussed. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 06:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The obvious POV violations have been taken care of. The sources should be evaluated by someone with more expertise than I. Hopefully soon as this is a "Good Article". --NeilN talk to me 06:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

We are going in circles. I have the proof. I have posted it. You are edit warring. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

At least NeilN is reasonable and reached out. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 06:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Outside party here: Can someone briefly discuss here why this material was rejected or point me to an archived discussion where the reasons this material was rejected were discussed? At first glance, it seems appropriate and well-sourced? Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The initial material was rejected because of POV terms like "vicious" and "similar hypocrisy". I have not reverted since those issues were fixed. I do think someone who is familiar with the topic should check on the appropriateness of the sources to ensure they're not coming from a rival movement. --NeilN talk to me 15:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
That is obviously inappropriate, but the current edit in question is sourced to Economic and Political Weekly, a book from Cambridge University Press, a manuscript in the Bodleian Library, and a book from the University of Pennsylvania Press. If nothing else, these sources appear to add value to the article and perhaps shouldn't be so quickly rejected. Gamaliel (talk) 15:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


Thank you Gamaliel. At least you bring a non-biased POV. 141.217.233.69 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay so from what I've understood so far a consensus has been reached...then why is there still edit warring? I'm still not sure what to make of this edit whether to revert and keep... -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 07:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? There's been almost zero discussion regarding this. Gamaliel (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A user from Detroit using multiple area IP addresses along with the now apparently blocked socks of User:Swamifraud, User:Swamioffraud, User:Duarfimaws, User:6Duarf.imaws, User:Sageorsun, and the User:141.217.233.69 (among many 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 Criticism section that he/she has rewritten on this page is written in extremely biased POV language and directly quotes every single line with a negative thought available mainly from just one source to give biased, undue weight to points which were discussed with neutral point of view before. The Hardiman and the Williams sources are not properly cited and the Bodleian Shikshapatri quotes are lifted from an original source without academic interpretation or context. Writing such a critical account must require more substantiation and an academic consensus, not to mention a Wikipedia consensus. I would suggest reverting the criticism section to the version that helped this article get good article status earlier (from a collaboration of contributors such as User:World, among others, who used the same Hardiman and Williams sources to write a much neutrally worded section). Otherwise, GA status needs to be re-evaluated/revoked for this article. Anastomoses (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the criticism that was erased. Even though this is hard to digest, I want to know get a consensus.

Breadinglover (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The section was not erased but restored to the original good article version before it was modified to a POV version by 141.217.233.69 and other sock puppets of Swamifraud. Gamaliel's point of citing the mentioned sources is addressed in unbiased original version. Anastomoses (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism section has been discussed and here is a suggested expansion. Any input would be helpful.

Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as the Supreme Being and was disapproving towards the idea that visions of Swaminarayan could form a path to attaining perfection. Accused of deviating from the Vedas, his followers were criticised for the illegal collection of wealth and the "practice of frauds and tricks."[18] In the views of Swami Dayananda, published as early as 1875, it was a "historical fact" that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers.[19] Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world.[20]

Swaminarayan initiated reforms in both relationships without totally abolishing sex discrimination or caste differentiation. The interpretation and application of Swaminarayan’s reform raise two hotly debated issues of contemporary social ethics, the position of women society and the role of caste.[21] However, while "many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles", Swaminarayan himself, despite considerable criticism from those in his own contemporary society who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted that education was the inherent right of all people.[3] According to Professor David Hardiman, "Swaminarayan's actions have propagated a vicious form of patriarchy that subjugates women."[22] After traveling throughout India, he was reported to vomit even if approached by even the shadow of a women."[23][24] Practices set forth by him seem to restrict women and make gender equality in leadership impossible.[25] Professor Williams states, “No women are trustees of the religion nor do they serve on any managing committees of the major temples. Thus all the wealth and institutions are effective under the control of men.”[26] Concepts of pollution associated with the menstrual cycle lead to the exclusion of women from the temples and daily worship.[27] In case of widows, he directed those who could not follow the path of chastity to remarry. For those who could, he lay down strict rules which included them being under the control of male members of the family. This may seem regressive; however it gave them "a respected and secure place in the social order" of the time.[28] He also directed male devotees not to listen to religious discourses given by women. Swaminarayan restricted widows "to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations."[29][30]

In relation to caste, as already suggested, the Swaminarayan order was and is predominantly conservative. Caste Divisions are scarely effaced by membership of the order and Harijans were formly excluded from Swaminarayan temples.[31] Swaminarayan's sect dismissed caste as irrelevant to the soul's status before god though in practice, caste distinctions remained visible among them though reduced in complexity.[32] He would eat along with the Rajput and Khati castes but not any lower.[33] He established separate places of worship for the lower population where they were considerable.[34] In the Shikshapatri, he wrote do not take food or water from a person of a lower caste. Members of a lower caste are prohibited from wearing a full sect mark (tilak chandlo) on their forehead.[35] Even now, however, for the vast majority of Gujarat's lower-caste, Untouchable and tribal population, the sect is out of bounds.[36]

Bluespeakers (talk) 15:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

Criticism has been debated on this talk several times. First and second para in current article looks good and should be retained as it is. However, the third para about caste distinction needs to be discussed here and is a divergent view from the current "Caste system and moksha" para. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

::Thank you for your input. Anything specific about the third paragraph. It seems to contradict his work that devotees claim he did but Professor Williams explains "well in one sentence that Swaminarayan initiated reforms in both relationships without totally abolishing sex discrimination or caste differentiation." I have to add that of course only applied to his followers and the solel regions where this man was located and preached. Bluespeakers (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

I disagree, none of the para matches the given source. Dayanand saraswati has never criticized swaminarayan, are we presenting lies here? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Acutally there are five. If you need more. Please ask:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22Maharaja+even+though+he+had+taken+the+vows+of+%22&source=bl&ots=uhk2QoqH8W&sig=MqL-M2sTl1Eoh_olE7f7vryPzJ4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0Ky6UcTHL82qqQGR54DoDg&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Maharaja%20even%20though%20he%20had%20taken%20the%20vows%20of%20%22&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=rmfR4nQvbSsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Accused+of+deviating+from+the+Vedas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ECdvUo2jBcL72QWQuIHwAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=frauds&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=swami+dayananda+criticized+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=Kjfj6yDy4Y&sig=E_s97SJV3gPc5zyJLZqrISqbU7Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HjNvUupjxffbBY_IgIgJ&ved=0CGYQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Vallabhacharya&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Siv6V1VDX-AC&pg=PA109&dq=Shikshapatri+Dhwanta+Nivarana&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YzZvUovXJemW2AW5loCoCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Shikshapatri%20Dhwanta%20Nivarana&f=false

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&oq=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&aqs=chrome..69i57.1012j0j9&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#es_sm=122&espv=210&q=%22acquainted+with+Swaminarayan+doctrines%2C+as+is+demonstrated+particularly+in+his+anti-Swami-+narayan+pamphlet+Shikshaapatriidhvaantanivaarana%22&tbm=bks

Bluespeakers (talk) 17:39, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

Will you move forward to proving these links, and present that exact quotes which you are claiming. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not where you discuss this but if you acutally read them. Dayanand criticized the Narayan sect a lot for deviating from the Vedas. You are not reading it. Don't be stuck on stupid. Read it and then add to the paragraphs as needed. Seriously, you have not read anything. I just re-read to make sure that I posted the right links and it is all there. I am working on rewriting the paragraph to it is more accurate than it already is and reflects exact quotes. You are welcome to help. But you are quite upset and need to really read all 5 sources.

Bluespeakers (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

One or two words compared to 50 words of claim or bigger.. Not helpful. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

But it says something. You may want to think it's one or two words but a few posts ago, it wasn't even that. You are flip-flopping. Why couldn't you admit there were one or two words before? Seems like you have a personal agenda.

Bluespeakers (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

I'm confused about this objection. The current version of the article already mentions Swami Dayananda criticizing Swaminarayan. Can you be more specific about your objections? What about this new proposed addition do you object to? Which sources cited specifically do not state what is asserted this proposed addition? Gamaliel (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I am confused too. Bluespeakers wants to remove any thing about Swami Dayananda criticizing Swaminarayan even though I provided five sources. Please Gamaliel could you help me out. I feel lost and now this user is trying to block me as if my input is not valueable since I did not agree with him. Bluespeakers (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

You're doing the right thing by engaging in discussion here on the talk page. Let's wait for Bladesmulti's response and take it from there. Gamaliel (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. On Dayananda Saraswati wiki page, it even shows in the Complete list of his works section that Dayananda wrote about swaminarayan. See # 8. ShikshaPatri Dhwant Nivaran OR SwamiNarayan mat Khandan (1875). I am going to try to find the english version. You simply did not want to have this up and I do not understand why. Any moderator will take a look at the sites I posted and see that I have proven my point of why something should not be deleted that was already sourced.

http://sanskritdocuments.org/news/subnews/MDSDVDPamphlet.pdf has the ShikshaPatri Dhwant Nivaran listed as one of many CRITICISM BOOKS.

Bluespeakers (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

References disagree with you Bladesmulti. Dayananda did criticize Swaminarayan and it needs to be noted. This was already discussed once in 2009 when the article became a GA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Bluespeakers, I suggest that as per Wikipedia:Criticism using an "integrated" approach. IMO, we should name Reforms as "Work and views". Integrate his good work and criticism on caste and women in it. Combine Dayananda with manifestation belief. Redtigerxyz Talk 04:54, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

::I agree that most of it should be integrated. See the main problem is after reading about this person is that the followers genuinely believe that this person was a god and then there are people like my group that knows that he was a solely a person who made some reforms in his area but then are followers who think otherwise and get angry when their "god" is portrayed in any way that is not perfect. That is the main problem so when people are being extra defensive, there is a deeper reason than simply being against a user's IP. I will rework the article in my sandbox and repost after getting it check out. I think that we should still have some of points still be in a criticism section when it doesn't relate to women or caste. Let me know if that is okay. Just in case that I have to file an appeal before I can even work on that, would you mind Redtigerxyz keeping an eye on this topic. Please also take a look at the BAPS and Pramukh Swami article and the rape allegations. Thank you.


Bluespeakers (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Does anyone know why this article does not have individual edit options for section while other articles do? I want copy the reform section only. I can just find from the whole article but can we add the individual edits option. Thank you.

Bluespeakers (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Just figured it out! It is protected that's why.

Bluespeakers (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Banned sock.

There has been edit warring from both sides: anti-Swaminarayan (adding excessive criticism) and pro-Swaminarayan (whitewashing criticism and adding excessive praise). I request the original team @AroundTheGlobe: and @World: to participate. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Redtigerxyz Since it was a sock puppet contribution, and he never described his changes. I ask you to stop edit warring yourself too. And give me at least one quote that suggests anything like "Dayanand criticized swaminarayan", we know that the given source doesn't even have "dayanand" in whole book. Also you don't have to remove something which is already backed by reliable sources and blaming that it's "white washing". It's obvious vandalism if you insert something which is not even backed by the sources. Also i don't see any breach of NPOV as the page still got the criticism by M M Rahman Bladesmulti (talk) 07:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Sir, please read the book first before claiming " we know that the given source doesn't even have "dayanand" in whole book. " not absolute falsehood. Luckily part of the pages cited are on Google Books (linked in section below0 to debunk your statement.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Replied. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Explaining my revert

Problems with [1]

  1. "Because of his attachment, devotion, loyalty towards his devotees, in his life time, he was already worshipped as a living god, his followers treated him as reincarnation of Lord Krishna, and Lord Rama.": Association of Krishna already stated. Rest Not supported by Reference page.
  1. "Bishop Reginald Heber regarded it to be interesting that Swaminarayan's followers included muslims as well. His followers except hindus, muslims, also ranged from zoroastrians, christians, buddhists, and others.[37]" : already covered in "Relations with other religions and the British Government"
  2. "Govind Ranade remarked Swaminarayan as "the last of Hindu reformers", he compared him with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dayanand Saraswati and others. Ranade further adds that "but the difference between all these and Swaminarayan lies in the fact that while they were influenced in one way or the other by light from western world, Swaminarayan was wholy untouched by any alien influence and was purely Hindu in his mental and spritual constitution as in the long rollof Teachers and Reformers of the past. This constitutes his uniqueness among the reformers of our times for in him, we see Hinduism in its purest and most indigenous form."ref:{{cite book |author=Kunhi Nair |title=Sages Through Ages - Volume III: India's Heritage |publisher=AuthorHouse |location= |year=2007 |page=125 |isbn=1420877682": Questionable reliability of source. The author is unreliable and the book is a product of self-publishing
  3. Removal of Dayananda's criticism: the author is the same author of "A New Face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan Religion". Thus a very reliable source. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Remove "Lord Rama" then.
  • 2nd one, it fits best with "reception", and it's much more descriptive in for this section
  • More sources, backing Mahadev Govind Ranade's comments.[2], [3].. Can be relied upon
[4] The quote's truthhood was questioned in Bombay High Court. The first instance being in a book by a follower.--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Give me the exact page number and quote from the book "A New Face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan Religion", so it can be confirmed. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) [5] pp.141-3 (p. 141 not part of preview). Not "A New Face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan Religion", but book by same author. --Redtigerxyz Talk 07:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What 'some' of his followers do, should be noted in his follower's page. And still, where's the criticism of Dayanand Saraswati? In his whole book satyartha prakash, it's not noted either. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What you should do is.. Revert your edit first of all, since it covered a lot more information than only "dayanand" reference. 2nd thing, you can add the Dayanand this way:-

"Several decades after formation of the movement, Swami Dayananda (1824–1883) questioned the acceptance of Swaminarayan as Supreme Being and Accused of deviating from the Vedas." Nothing more than that should be added, as this page isn't about his followers, but him. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said p. 141 is not available. The story as explained in the preview is an allegory as the reference explains. p. 143 has part of the false god comment: Sahajananda (Swaminarayan) is said to be decked himself to find disciples and become a deity. Fakes breed fakes it says ahead.Redtigerxyz Talk
Fine, that part too, but line should be "Swami Dayananda, further adds that Swaminarayan decorated himself as Narayana in order to gain followers."... Nothing like "1875" or "historical fact." Bladesmulti (talk) 08:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
"historical fact" is what the reference states in preview. 1875 is the dates of Dayananda's comments in the reference (not in preview).--Redtigerxyz Talk 08:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know, but still won't need. It's not something as clear as "2+2=4", but just a opinion. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to use "integrated" from WP:CRITICISM

I am WP:BOLDly changing the article as per my proposal in "Criticism" discussion above. --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Another reference

While this article is getting renewed attention, it would be good to incorporate content from this pretty recent and high-quality reference:

Purohit, Teena (31 October 2012). "Comparative Formations of the Hindu Swami Narayan "Sect"". The Aga Khan Case: religion and identity in colonial India. Harvard University Press. pp. 87–110. ISBN 978-0-674-06770-7.

Abecedare (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Which page number? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I have added the relevant page numbers in the template above. There is a whole chapter in the book on the sect. It also provides a biographical summary of Sahajanand Swami (see page 99 onwards) including details from satpanth sources that are currently missing from the wikipedia article. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2014

I need to add the content of Anadimuktas vicharan which the lord announced till 500 yeard from the day he took birth on this planet. Also, I need to show the hierarchy of Anadimuktas which the lord introduced. Valaji hetal (talk) 08:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Sing 10:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

94.173.139.123 (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC) To whom it may concern,

In the section "Work and views" sub section 'Caste system' the Rajput have been classed as a low caste when it is an almost undisputed position held by all India and neighbouring countries that they are a high caste or rank as top in the caste system and this is a blatant disinformation and distortion of the truth. It would be greatly appreciated if this was corrected so that if any researchers decide to research the caste system or the Rajput it would be easier for them to search in the high castes and also to keep the article truthful and honest.

Thank you

Kamran Mistry

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 18:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

I would like to add the word "Lord" before Swaminarayan. Suraj.ponnoju (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Not done. Please see this. Thanks, Jim Carter 20:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Swaminarayan - Avatar?

Hinduism traditionally prides itself of being the oldest religion in the world without stress on without a founder, what makes Hinduism unique. Idols of living and past priests are controversial in Hinduism since Hinduism started in pre Vedic times without any idols and only a fire altar. If Swaminarayan claims to be God and his descendants are Gods then they are probably not considered to be Hindus but an alternate sect like Sai Baba, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.160.121 (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2015

Yogesh 2205 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015

Followers of the Yogi Divine Society or YDS, also beleived that Gunatitanand Swami was the spiritual successor to Bhagwan Swaminarayan. They are different than BAPS because their spiritual head is '''Hariprasad Swami '''. After Yogiji Maharaj died the sect was once again split Sarvanand (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, I'm not sure what exactly you want to change. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 05:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ADD FORETELLS OF LORD SWAMINARAYAN - Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2016

PLEASE ADD THE FORTELL OF LORD SWAMINARAYAN IN "VASUDEV MAHTMYM', "BHAGAWAT (CONVERSATION BETWEEN KING JANAK & NINE YOGESHWARS,CONVO OF SHUKDEVJI, FROM PADMA PURAN ETC. OR CONTACT ME , I CAN ADD. Vivekchotaliya (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
And please stop SHOUTING - Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the line in first paragraph - "Criticised By Mahatma Gandhi" & other

This article contains one line in the very first paragraph - "He has, however, been criticised by people such as Swami Dayananda and Mahatma Gandhi. The acceptance of Swaminarayan as God and secondary treatment of women is questioned by critics"

1) Criticized by Mahatma Gandhi : There is no proof that , " Mahatma Gandhi has ever criticized "Swaminarayan Sampraday" or raised any question on Lord Swaminarayan as a God . Please either give proof or remove that line. 2) secondary treatment of women - Please mention that which kind of secondary treatment of women is practiced in Swaminarayan Sampraday ? And is not practiced in other "Lord Krishna-Based" Sakar-Matvadi Sampradays??? (Sampradays believing Lord Krishna as Supreme God and believe that God has a Shape/form/body and do Idol worship, make temples, perform Vedik rituals. Like Vaishnavism and its branches)? 3) Why the only/specifically Dayanandji's criticism given in article? Please explain because he had opposed all kind "Lord Krishna based Idol worshiping" sampraday. So how can you put his statements/point of view? if you put anyone's point of view , who believes in " Lord Krishna based Idol worshiping Sampraday and criticized Swaminarayan Sampraday, then we can understand his criticism. But the man who didn't even believe in Lord Krishna, how his criticism can be important opposing a Sampraday which is based on Lord Krishna? Or what is the role to mention of his criticism in this article?

so please remove it or if you want to keep it as it is, then please add those lots of great Spiritual leaders,Saints' point of view who are in favor of Swaminarayan Sampraday.If you keep Dayanandji's point of view , you have to add our Sampraday's Achary's point of views, too. You can not put any one man's one sided point of view.

-Give the proofs of above mentioned points- 1 & 2 or remove it. -Please explain /add/modify or remove lines for point no : 3 Vivekchotaliya (talk) 08:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There should be a section where someone can prove Swaminarayan is not GOD.

Swaminarayan has been criticized by Swami Dayanand Saraswati and Mahatma Gandhi.

I can even validate it further, that swaminarayan is not a god, nor he is the avatar of Vishnu. There has been 9 avatar of Vishnu, 10th is yet to take place as Kalki.

Kalki avatar will bring an end to the darkness of the Kali Yuga, destroying evil and sin, and beginning a new yuga (age) of sinlessness and peace known as the Satya Yuga.

If swaminarayan claims himself as avatar of Vishnu, then it would have been 10th avatar of Vishnu, thus Satya Yuga would have started.


Ans : FYI : Swami Dayanand Sarswati has not just criticized Swaminarayan but also Lord Krishna and all other Idol worshiping Religions. Even he told Krishna as a "Dead" & "Vyabhichari" in his most of scriptures. And as you can see in article , that Mahatma Gandhi has also criticized Vallabhachary ( Vaishnav Sampraday).

For Swaminarayan as a God : Please read Skand Puran's (one of Ved Vyas's 18 PURANs)Vishnukhand's "Vasudev Mahtmyam" [ here attaching Eng pdf : http://www.issousa.org/Content/scriptures/05%20English/vasudev%20mahatmya%20english.pdf ]

For Swaminarayan Bhagawan Avtaar plz read Read : Ch 18 Shlok No : 42,43,44 मया कृष्णेन निहताः सार्जुनेन रणेषु ये | प्रवर्तयिष्यन्त्यसुरास्ते त्वधर्म यदा क्षितौ ||४२||

धर्मदेवात्तदा मूर्तौ नरनारायणात्मना | प्रवृतेડपि कलौ ब्रह्मन् | भूत्वाहं सामगो द्विजः ||४३||

मुनिशापान्नृतां प्राप्तं सर्षि जनकमात्मनः | ततोડविता गुरुभ्योડहं सद्धर्मं स्थापयान्नज ||४४||

If you have any doubt please tell me. I will try to solve it. Regards Vivekchotaliya (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Ans to Vivekchotaliya: Well You really have find a book from another cult swaminarayan sect, which has no references and way too many discrepancy between actual sanskrit text.

I spent great amount of time to find the right information. Link provided in above response, moulded the words to show swaminarayan a more superior than others.

Dear friend, visit this link for more information, and find Ch 18 Sloks No : 42,43,44. Visit this link http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/puranas/skanda_purana/skanda_purana_02vaishnava_09vasudeva.pdf

sanskrit

In the link that I provided, you will find that sloks preceding the #42 will match exactly, but sloks #42, 43, 44 have been twisted. It just points at the thing that swaminarayan sects are pure cult, and should be avoided. I'm no expert in Sanskrit, but it clearly shows how cult swaminarayan sects are.

May be it will open up the eyes of the people who will read this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamydsp90 (talkcontribs) 04:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swaminarayan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2016

RDRG9 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No request made. — JJMC89(T·C) 15:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

That Bhagvan Swaminarayan was born on April 2 not the 3. Template:Substn:^98.27.208.139 (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

Bhagvan Swaminarayan was born on April 2 1781 no April 3 1781. 98.27.208.139 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Misquoting Sources and Misattribution

I spent the last little while going through the article and found many unfounded claims and downright misattribution. Many sources were misquoted, and plagiarized. Upon investing the actual sources, I often found no mention or link between what was claimed in the citation and the article. As responsible editors, we should try to find credible high quality sources and include the original intent of the scholars.

No amount of excellent prose and the sheer number of citations or external links has an effect on a subject's notability if the original intent is distorted (see WP:MASK). While Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, it is important to not misuse the bold claim (see WP:BRDWRONG).

I have reworked the sources to include the original intent of the scholars. I also removed the plagiarism, and found 1-2 alternative sources to strengthen the entire Women's section. I hope this can be in the spirit of a more civil and thorough analysis of credible high quality sources.

Tardispower (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a notice for Swamydsp90 to please use this talk page next time the user feels compelled to remove a balanced commentary. As I explained above, respecting WP:UNDUE is important therefore I've had to remove the commentary in the lead section that the user included. It did not include a balanced statement of facts from Gandhi's perspective violating WP:NPOV, and it was given undue weight in the first place to even be included.
Additionally, the user completely ignored the additions that included peer-reviewed scholarly work, and restored his own original inclusion which once again violated WP:NPOV. Please refrain from doing this. I have also had to remove the Dayanand Saraswati commentary since the text cited, and even the claims cited do not satisfy WP:RS and seem to fall into the WP:FRNG. Swamydsp90 is asked to engage in a proper discussion here on the talk page before future inclusions and edits. The user has been issued a warning on their talk page, which holds 4 previous warning by various editors over the last year who have noticed a similar behavior. Tardispower (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Swaminarayan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Hardiman, David (1988-09-10). "Class Base of Swaminarayan Sect". Economic and Political Weekly. 23 (37): 1907–1912. Retrieved 2009-07-08.
  2. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  3. ^ a b Rudert, A. (2004). "Inherent Faith and Negotiated Power: Swaminarayan Women in the United States". Cornell University. Retrieved 2009-05-10. Unknown parameter |chapterlink= ignored (help); |chapter= ignored (help) Cite error: The named reference "dl" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  5. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  6. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=raymond%20williams%20swaminarayan%20women&f=false
  7. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_obj.php?type=units&id=34&brief=1&alltrans=1
  8. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  9. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=pollution&f=false
  10. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  11. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  12. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hindoos&f=false
  13. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  14. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  15. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=zrKdPTfog3oC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Swami+Dayananda+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=HcxNprtz_8&sig=MqWUCjSe7B4-7Q63ViF1kg-P2eY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-kCxUbuUINLaqQHinYHIBQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Swami%20Dayananda%20swaminarayan&f=false
  16. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=tPkexi2EhAIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+williams+swaminarayan+women&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IkSxUciVLMS0rQGtkoHIBw&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hindoos&f=false
  17. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=zrKdPTfog3oC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Swami+Dayananda+swaminarayan&source=bl&ots=HcxNprtz_8&sig=MqWUCjSe7B4-7Q63ViF1kg-P2eY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-kCxUbuUINLaqQHinYHIBQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=yet%20the%20basic&f=false
  18. ^ Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. pp. 141–143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3.
  19. ^ Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. p. 143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3.
  20. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  21. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  22. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  23. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  24. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=OegOWaEeLgoC&pg=PA18&dq=vomit+swaminarayan&hl=en&sa=X&ei=js1vUobXBZGl2AWIyIDwCQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vomit%20swaminarayan&f=false
  25. ^ Williams 2001, p. 165
  26. ^ Williams 2001, p. 166
  27. ^ Williams 2001, p. 169
  28. ^ Williams 2001, p. 167
  29. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_obj.php?type=units&id=34&brief=1&alltrans=1
  30. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  31. ^ The Camphor Flame: Popular Hinduism and Society in India Christopher John Fuller P. 173
  32. ^ Indian Society and the Making of the British Empire, Issue 2002 Christopher Alan Bayly P. 161
  33. ^ Williams 2001, p. 170
  34. ^ http://www.jstor.org/stable/4379024
  35. ^ http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~shik/pdf/arthdipika-isso.pdf
  36. ^ The Structure of Indian Society: Then and Now A. M. Shah P. 117
  37. ^ Narayan, Kirin (1984). A New Face of Hinduism: The Swaminarayan Religion. CUP Archive. p. 202. ISBN 0521274737.