Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Legal Separation inclusion and doctrinal origins name changes

I propose that a legal separation section be added to this article. As this sect is a break off from the original group there are several sources at go into depth about the legal proceedings and the interpretation of the rules during the court sessions. Please make suggestions as to where this should be included. Also, the section doctrinal origins violates WP:NPOV because the philosophy is an interpretation of texts and not based on doctrinal origins like the writer has tried to suggest. Swamiblue (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not page 89 of An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism but page 64 and you have copied it from the book, see Wikipedia:Copyright infringement, you should not copy. It is not enough for claiming any controversy either. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the article. You are removing a cited and properly quoted piece of information. As a vandal Bladesmulti, you should at least try to cover your tracks. You justified deleted the whole section even though you are only contesting one point. If you want to discuss here then please to but please stop removing things without merit.Swamiblue (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Swamiblue, if you commit a copyright violation again, I will block you. Is that clear enough?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Just having something 'cited' is not enough, from the book' authors point of view, one incident was probably enough for claiming controversies, yet we need more information that is relevant. An incident from 1960-66 is probably not enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't threaten me. I believed I cited the information correctly and if not then let me know. You are abusing your authority as an admin and are unnecessarily aggressive. I will make the corrections and add the section that Bladesmulti contacted you about. Swamiblue (talk) 05:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

You can, but simply one citation with hardly any criticism is just not enough. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links

Why are these websites:

constantly being removed without comment? Is there something objectionable about them? -Will Beback 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Those sites are most likely bieng removed by some member of the sect. I have been told that those sites do not offer any relevant material about BAPS and are not acknowledged on the BAPS website. Those sites merely reference BAPS and are not associated with the organization.

Thanks for the coutesy of a reply. Whoever you are in contact with, please tell them that when editing Wikipedia we have certain policies, one of which is explaining one's edits, especially deletions. Being "acknowledged on the BAPS website" is not a criteria for inclusion here. Your other points are more relevant. -Will Beback 01:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Beback, that you right. Being on the BAPS website is not a valid reason but let me give you the real reason. These links are being removed by the members of sect because both links refer to groups that are not a part of BAPS. The Mahant Swami page is created by a group of people who believe a monk of BAPS, Mahant Swami, to be their guru and spiritual head. As the BAPS website and the BAPS wikipedia article both state, BAPS has only one guru and spiritual leader - that is Pramukh Swami Maharaj. The Mahant Swami page is most relevant in an article about the Mahant Swami group but not fair representation under a BAPS article. The Kakaji link is also deleted because it refers to a group that was excommunicated from the BAPS in the 1960's and so again it is not right to put the link here because visitors would confuse the group with BAPS and the link does not clarify that point.

Hello,

I added some links to other Wikipedia articles relating to BAPS (i.e: The article on Pramukh Swami Maharaj, and the article on the Neasden Temple). Hope I've put this comment in the right place!! Dylanpatel 12:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do Bapsy Babe alwasy try to consider them selfs as a part of the Swaminarayan Faith, they broke all connection with the original swaminarayan faith a long time ago and now are a splinter group please refrain from using the name Swaminarayan you are Akshar Puthsotham 86.135.188.165 15:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also while I am on the subject I think its only fair to tell you that the BAPS lost a court case against the Original Swaminarayan faith to use the Swaminarayan Name in any of their Mandirs and centres please obide by this and dont use it.

- The decision by the Gujarat State Court in the early mid 1900's you refer to was appealed against, and the ruling was quashed by the Supreme Court. If BAPS really were using the name 'Swaminarayan' illegaly, do you not think much more would be done about it given the status BAPS holds internationally?

Hi,

Mahantswami giving reference from PURSHOTAM BOLYA PRITE that "Bhagvan ne bhajta sarve mukto divya chhe" as swaminarayan bhagvan belive this then who are use to do argue on this ???

All swaminarayan devotees are DIVINE and we should respect all that it.

Regarding Mahantswami PAGE - Param pujay Yogijimaharaj has told that He is "Satpurush" and if you want to listen that audio that you can visit this link : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Mahant-Swami-Sadhu-Keshavjivandas/432145803536378 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.220.236 (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I echo the sentiment of engaging in discussion until consensus is reached and abiding by Wikipedia's core policies and conduct. However, while many of the editor's here have made genuine attempts to champion and uphold the conduct and policies that govern Wikipedia, I have noticed that a group of anonymous Detroit users have not been participating in the right spirit. I want to reiterate an important issue raised by Sacredsea regarding a breach of Wikipedia conduct (WP:Civility) by the anon Detroit users. I agree with his/her assessment of the issue. Personal attacks are a deterrent to healthy dialogue. There are several noted examples above and I hope that they serve as a reminder of how not to engage in constructive debate.

Nevertheless, some editors have raised important issues that are worthy of discussion. In particular, I agree with HinduPundit's assessment of the Controversy Section and its relevance to the following policies: WP:Undue and WP:TE. While further debate would've enriched the discussion, the anon Detroit user's response was to label HinduPundit as a 'member of the sect with biased intentions.'

Furthermore, I don't believe referencing remarks made earlier by Goethean (anon Detroit user) serves as an effective response to the WP policy-supported arguments made by HinduPundit.

Actionjackson09 (talk) 21:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The editors may have raised some decent points but so far none has stated a response to the last response. Three credible sources have been provided by the Anon user and their is still debate whether this is an issue? Is he lying that there are no turf wars and conflicts? 198.111.39.32 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

216.55.112.120 is vandalising the article. Plese adhere to Wikipedia's policies. You will be reported if this continues. 216.55.112.120 (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Though, the Anon user(s) have produced [three] sources, none of them provides credible and sufficient evidence about the arguments s/he is making and fall short of the Wikipedia policy of "verifiability" (WP:V). As per Wikipedia guidelines, the absolute minimum standard for including information in Wikipedia is verifiability. If the information is not verifiable, it must not be included under any circumstances (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#Definitions). The Anon Detroit-Area editor(s) claim that "BAPS sahdus were involved in violence" - None of the sources provided quote this. As Rooneywayne17 warns: " User: 141.217.173.213 should also keep in mind that original research is prohibited as per WP:NOR and unless you provide reliable sources that directly support your edits (WP:Verifiability) they may be removed."

Hence, any controversial statement needs to be backed by a reliable source. In this case, none of the sources offer credible evidence that BAPS sadhus were causing the violence, an argument that anon user(s) are making which User:HinduPundit agrees with when he says, "In terms of accuracy, it is far from clear from the "DNA" piece cited that BAPS sadhus engaged in violence of any sort. The piece alleges that Vadtal sadhus were protesting against BAPS and against the police, but does not reliably support a conclusion that any BAPS individuals present were violent; a reliable, verifiable source would be needed before any such claim could be included on Wikipedia. In terms of balance, the “Controversy” section that the anonymous Detroit-area user(s) has advocated would constitute undue weight, and thus should not be included.". Further, the only statement that DNA article makes with regards to involvement is fuzzily stated in: "The situation soon turned violent when the crowd, which now included BAPS sadhus, targeted the Gadhada police station." However, even the statement that BAPS sadhus were in the crowd does not even hold weight. Since, original Police court documents report that BAPS sadhus were not present in the crowd at all. Here is a link to the original police report: (https://sites.google.com/site/originalpolicereport/). The report basically states that the defendants (Vartal sadhus) repeatedly accuse (BAPS sadhus) of being in the crowd. They present four photographs - none of which support their claim. The report signed by Vishnukumar Vyas (Circle Police Inspector, Botad, Gadhada) concludes with non-involvement of BAPS sadhus in any sort of violence. Thus, it clearly invalidates the DNA's opinionated assertion - which makes the DNA source both questionable and unreliable.

Based on the above analysis this section clearly lacks reliable sources to back the claims made by the Anon editor(s). Also, Wikipedia works by adhering its article content based on a consensus of verifiable reliable sources, especially for a controversy section. The goal of Wikipedia itself is to present controversial issues fairly. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth." Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them (See WP:TRUTH). The phrase "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth" means that verifiability is a necessary condition (a minimum requirement) for the inclusion of material, though it is not a sufficient condition (it may not be enough). Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources per Wikipedia's policy on due and undue weight. Citing reliable sources for any material challenged or likely to be challenged gives readers the chance to check for themselves that the most appropriate sources have been used, and used well. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability.

Thus, I agree with Anastomoses, that this section be removed to prevent all the unsubstantiated assertions. As Sacredsea clarifies in an earlier comment, that the cited source does not meet the standards of verifiability. Agreeing, with Rooneywayne17, "stating opinions or contested assertions as fact does little to improve this article while "threatening" to report anyone who cannot handle facts". HinduPundit, further acknowledges, "when it comes to controversial and debatable content, it is important for Wikipedia articles to be both accurate and balanced (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE)."

Also Anon Detroit-Area editor(s) have cited a Gujarati reference to assert "BAPS had to change published biography..." which is a conclusion that they are making based on the reference and thus constitutes original research (WP:NOR). This is an opinion held by the Anon-editor(s), since a reliable neutral source that explicitly explains why if any changes were made need to be provided - otherwise this comes under original research. Editors are absolutely prohibited from adding any material that is un-verifiable (See WP:NOTTRUTH). Further, texts undergo revision for multiple reasons from edition to edition and do not imply any controversy. Also, citing a source that is hosted by a group attempting to advocate a non-neutral view raises questions about the validity of the source itself. Thus, clearly lacking a reliable neutral source to support the arguments being made. This statement and its corresponding statements also needs to be removed due to undue weight (See WP:UNDUE).

Looking at the article history, as a result of adding a non-neutral and unbalanced controversy section which unreliably supports the claims being made, has resulted into a vigorous edit warring going on in the article. Repeated reversions are contrary to Wikipedia policy under WP:Edit warring. Based on edit summaries provided by multiple anonymous IP addresses, also support removal of this section. Due to absence of reliable verifiable sources that directly and in clear terms asserts that BAPS sadhus caused violence - this section is taken down.

Also, the general consensus point towards removing the section based on the different reasons summarized above from all the editors involved in the talk page discussion. Thus, I am removing this section based on the broadly held editorial consensus (WP:CONS). I again call on the editors to give any views they may have on the issues presented above. If convincing reliable sources to support the section cannot be presented, it has no place in Wikipedia. Please discuss your views below. Overtime, I hope we all continue to work together towards improving the quality of this article. Thank you all for your participation in the talk page discussion. Kapil.xerox (talk) 09:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the efforts of User:Kapil.xerox in trying to get a broad community consensus on this issue. This is the right way to go if we are to adhere to the guiding principles of Wikipedia and improve the article. Having said that, the Anon. user’s latest edit clearly violates WP:Verifiability since the reference he/she has used is incomplete and hence cannot be verified by any other user. This alone constitutes grounds for the edit to be reverted. The edits in the controversy section also violate WP:Undue as pointed out by previous editors on this talk page. In determining the proper weight for a particular section, Wikipedia considers a viewpoint’s prevalence in reliable sources NOT its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the public. This is an important distinction and since the Anon. user has failed to provide unbiased and verifiable references for the edits he/she has made, those edits and the section as a whole can be removed as per Wikipedia policies and principles. I encourage the Anon. user to get a registered account and participate in talk page discussions with an aim of improving this article in line with Wikipedia policies instead of engaging in edit-warring (WP:Edit warring) that is reducing the overall quality of the article. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Rooneywayne17

Is the Encyclopedia Of Religion not a reliable source? Also this link, http://kakaji.org/photoJourney/letters/pdf/sm-oldvsnew.pdf needs to mentioned on this talk page so that future readers and researchers alike that are using wiki can understand that baps has made major changes and edits in the texts throughout the sect. Instead of making their ideology fit the texts, they make the texts fit their ideology and this needs to be publicly known. Examples include Jay Sadguru Swami, Swamini Vato, Shri Radhika Krishnashtaka and subtle changes in core texts that help promote BAPS philosophy. Please correct me if I am wrong. Currently, I am getting these facts published with an author so that it is documented and establishes the greater result of the schism. Additionally, as sadhu Pramukh approaches his death, we need to add a successorship part in both articles. Also, based on my understanding from a BAPS Official, there has been severe infighting within the BAPS organization for the next president/akshara. No articles have been published regarding this topic yet, but this may occur after his demise so it should be noted here. I am requesting User:Kapil.xerox to assist in updating the Gopalanand Swami article. I suggest we have three sections on how each of three main sect's views him with an expanded biography. User:Kapil.xerox is educated with BAPS so I look forward to your updates. I was curious, is there any textual basis in core writing that Gopalanand was a mukta? Additionally, to my amazement, a Chino Hills BAPS Mandir was recently built and there is no wiki page to establish that. It may have to do with the fact that baps was opposed by several members of the community regarding the height but eventually was able to get it approved because the city was left with no choice because baps already started construction. Unusually these mandir articles go up quick but I understand that baps members would like avoid mentioning this so I am requesting User:Kapil.xerox to help me out creating that article as well because I know how much that user appreciates factual information and making sure everyone is civil. I appreciate this discussion.15:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

141.217.233.69 (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I would like to discuss the part where it was stated before that "BAPS had to change published biography...". This is not a mere opinion or original research like you claim. If time was taken in verifying the fact rather than finding ways to strike it down then there is substantial evidence that BAPS changed the biography with a source that explicitly explains why if any changes were made. I will go ahead and help you with that.

With regard to the Encyclopedia of religion, I believe that User:Rooneywayne17 has already pointed out on his talk page post that it is not properly sourced and as such other editors cannot verify. Since it fails to satisfy WP:V in this way, and it is regarding a controversial topic for which there is not consensus among editors, it would be better to keep it off the page, until 1) the proper reference is found and cited, 2) editors reach some consensus on the talk page (WP:BRD). It is not constructive to Wikipedia to engage in edit warring and just revert it when there is an open, unresolved discussion on the talk page. Regarding the later edition of the biography, after looking at the link which user 141.217.233.69 posted, I believe the violation of WP:NOR was cited as a result of using a primary source document, without any reliable or objective secondary sources clearly stating that there is some controversy here. As I understand it, in general, successive editions of books are common and they are typically made due to changes in the text that reflect new research, changes in the author's opinion, etc. This, in and of itself, does not appear to me to meet the standard of controversy, since new editions of books are a common practice everywhere. Thus, since there is clearly not consensus on this issue, and it is controversial, I feel that user:141.217.233.69 should abide by WP:BRD and try to achieve consensus on the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. Also, I would note that there are repeated violations of the policies WP:BLP and WP:PA on talk pages by user 141.217.233.69. It is clear from the avowed hostility in his talk page posts that he is importing a off-wiki dispute into Wikipedia. I would suggest that he should refrain from editing Swaminarayan-related articles due to this issue, or else be extremely sensitive to maintain a position of neutrality, lest his actions continue to be disruptive to Wikipedia.Sacredsea (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

I checked the Encyclopedia of religion and it is there. Why it is such as big topic that this cited information is up but when a user asks about updating the Gopalanand Swami article or the Chino Hills baps temple page you refuse to take time out. You are biased. You refuse allow any factual, critical information allowed. Let's get from unbiased editors. Can you verify every source that is on this massive article? Stop attacking. Why does this bother you so much? Is it because you are a member of this sect and it bugs you that it's not perfect? That is call being involved in a cult. Read this http://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/15-signs-your-church-is-a-cult/ It may help you think clearly. I can help the user post the pages of the encyclopedia because at this point you will do anything to manipulate the articles. Swamifraud (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

With regard to User:Swamifraud's above post, the point I am making about the encyclopedia is not a question of bias but proper Wikipedia procedure. As I mentioned in the previous post, UNTIL there is a proper citation made, because it is controversial and there is not editorial consensus, it should not be there. This point as well as the other points on the post are not an attack, but a civil discussion based clearly on Wikipedia policies. However, User:Swamifraud's comments directed towards me about being in a cult and allegations related to personal information are an attack, and User:Swamifraud has repeatedly engaged in such personal attacks for any editor who has disagreed with him. I do find this disruptive. With regard to the Encyclopedia, I don't think it is such a big deal, and the citation should be easily corrected, but a good faith effort to follow Wikipedia policies will make the encyclopedia better, and that is my intention.Sacredsea (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

As an addition note to User:Swamifraud and user:141.217.233.69, please talk page posts, like articles cannot violate WP:BLP by posting unsourced defamatory material about living persons. According to wikipedia policy, all editors may summarily delete such posts from articles or talk pages without discussion. So, I would request all editors who are doing this to desist from violating this policy or reverting such deletions. If there is credibly sourced information that meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, then that should be indicated in the post. Sacredsea (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, with regard to the controversy post about differences in texts amongst different groups, I looked at the sources cited, and nowhere is there any indication of a controversy there, thus, inclusion into the controversy section is unwarranted and may violate WP:NOR. I think the issue has been explained at length by User:Anastomoses and other editors on this and other talk pages, so I am not rehashing all of those points, but User:Swamifraud and User:141.217.233.69 are ignoring all of those points, and simply keep engaging in edit warring. I would hope that the disruptive edits stop. Sacredsea (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is any final clear up on this issue:

Source:

BAPS activities are not always without controversy, as in its open support of the Sardar Sarovar dam project in Gujarat. For its supporters, the Sardar Sarovar dam and the multi-dam Narmada Valley Development Project of which it is a key component are intended to increase power capacity and provide irrigation, cleaner drinking water, and flood control; for its opponents, the dam is environmentally and socially disastrous and is purchased at the cost of submerging a high percentage of dalit and adivasi villages. The wealthy BAPS organization is criticized by dam opponents for acting to protect its class interests, including those of its land holding members. In response, BAPS followers who are familiar with the Narmada controversy point to the various village relocation and community rehabilitation projects voluntarily instigated and funded by BAPS.

In addition to BAPS's break from the original Swaminarayan satsaṅg, other schisms have occurred. In 1966 a handful of East African BAPS followers broke away and founded the Yogi Divine Society. Additionally, sādhus from the original movement have left to form their own institutions that sometimes (e.g., Swaminarayan Gurukuls) but not always (e.g., Swaminarayan Gadi) retain an affiliation with their gāddī.

If Sacredsea deletes it again, and I will report her for vandalism.

Duarfimaws (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have removed from the controversy section edits that pertain to the Chino Hills mandir as they violate several wiki principles.

The edits give undue weight to minority views about the mandir and violate principles of neutrality. User:Duarfimaws has engaged in WP:Cherrypicking by selectively quoting phrases like 'terrorist haven' and 'third world city.' Accordingly, these edits inappropriately sensationalize a resolved issue related to a community project. In fact, the same LA Times article User:Duarfimaws has cited includes several quotes from individuals who overwhelmingly supported the construction of the mandir. As is such, the edits serve to promote the user's biased view and fail to present the topic and article with an impartial tone (WP:IMPARTIAL).

More importantly, these edits violate the WP:BALASPS principle. The principle makes clear that discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. Similarly, BAPS has hundreds of mandirs around the world and a discussion surrounding a particular mandir's construction is not a significant topic in the context of this article and its intended subject matter.

Ultimately, the Chino Hills mandir represented a community project. Accordingly, there was ongoing discussion from residents and leaders. In the end, there was overwhelming support from the council and community members. Hence, it is incorrect to label this as a controversy. A true controversy would be characterized by a scandalous issue that at present has two vehement sides. Actionjackson09 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A user from Detroit using multiple area IP addresses (User:141.217.233.69 among many others) along with the now blocked socks of User:Swamifraud, User:Swamioffraud, User:Duarfimaws, User:6Duarf.imaws, User:Sageorsun, and possibly 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 paragraph on the Narmada Dam project that this user created was cherry picked for negativity out of an entire section on the issue and is directly plagiarized without paraphrasing or context. Additionally, the paragraph deals with an isolated event and has disproportionate coverage relative to the many other points pertaining to the organization itself (WP:WEIGHT, WP:BALASPS). I think it is still worth including in the article, so I am moving it with the other environmental activities of the organization where water conversation/supply, etc are already mentioned. Anastomoses (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Nizil Shah made a change to the title of the controversy section, changing it to Schism, and deleting the word controversy from the first sentence in favor of dispute. I think that is a more appropriate title for the content of the section. It is not really a controversy that is described, but a schism that occurred half a century ago. To title that controversy would be similar to a section on the protestant reformation on the catholic wikipedia page being titled controversy. Perhaps it was when it was happening, but as years pass, it is not a controversy, but a schism in the history of the organization. User:Bluespeakers is suggesting that the word controversy must remain since it is the exact word in the book cited. However, the sentence in question is not in quotes in the wikipedia page, so the exact word need not be retained. If the exact sentence has been lifted from a book and not put in quotes, then it may be considered plagiarism and the paraphrase made by User:Nizil Shah would seem in this case doubly appropriate. Sacredsea (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

How can it be grounds for plagiarism if it is cited? I will revert your changed and put the original in quotation. Let's allow others to have a change to speak. I looked at your history and literally anytime there is a dispute regarding criticism or controversy about BAPS, that's the only time you come and try to remove things? Since it will be quoted, I hope that you will not have a problem with it. The controversy section needs to be expanded not removed.

Bluespeakers (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Based on my reading with how this argument has unfolded - I am of the opinion that the schism section needs to be merged into the History section and not have a section on its own. I will wait for comments before I move it to its appropriate section. As discussed earlier, the current description of the section merits a historical context than a current event. Kapil.xerox (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree because the authors of both books state that the BAPS group has been involved in several disputes and controversies. The Sardar Sarovar Dam controversy along with the Akshardamn Temple being accused of lacking the environmental clearance for the Yamuna bed violation should also belong here. Furthermore, this entire article is written in a advertisement style where all the exceptions that the sect has made regarding the interpretation of their philosophy are stated as if that was that was the original group, though in fact it is not. Regarding current controversial events, Pramukh Swami was recently accused of sexual abuse but until further documentation is produced, my understanding is that it cannot be included. But nevertheless, there are other points that will be included so I believe the section is warranted. Please remember Wikipedia is not for things made up one day So whether it is a historical event or current event, the authors attribute these events as controversial. There are quite a few violations of WP:NPOV and loaded language throughout this article. I do have my doubts that many people that have responded to this in the past are members of the group so please be unbiased when you respond (WP:RNPOV) Remember "NPOV policy means presenting all significant points of view. This means providing not only the points of view of different groups today, but also different groups in the past, and not only points of view you share, but also points of view with which you disagree." Swamiblue (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the schism. The citation you provide itself ascertains its historical context. Being a historical fact that it is - I will move it under its appropriate section holder in the history section. I will wait to see what others think about this move. You have not responded why it does not belong in the history section. Please focus your arguments on the "move" with regards to the schism section only. Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about the schism as well. Aren't all citations ascertains of historical context? It does not belong in the historical section because it is a controversial division that occurred where the leader of that group stated that the current leader of BAPS was against him and rejected his authority. Therefore, a controversy section is warranted. Also Kapil.xerox, are you willing to disclose whether or not you are a member of BAPS because it seems apparent to me based on your editing history and patterns of defending this organization. I have been reading WP:COIADVICE and WP:COI and all your posts and edits relating to this subject are are heavily showing conflict of interest. Swamiblue (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Williams p64, he begins "The history of the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha has not been..." Just as I said the quote itself acknowledges its historical emergence in 1966. And the controversial aspect is described on p66, "Controversy arose over a trip which he took to East Africa" The controversy is over this trip. Thus all of what is described by WIlliams has a historical basis to this trip and it merits being included in the 1960-70s era of the history section. According WIkipedia, schismatic aspects about a religious organization are not controversial. I have other editors who agree with my assertion. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&diff=next&oldid=578625963. User:Nizil_Shah agrees that this section also be named as Schism. Let other editors weigh in their stand about this matter. While that goes on, I am going to revert your edit. Since, that was what was on the article when it last stood. I notice you are one of the editors that was blocked multiple times due to your disruptive editing. You right away launch onto disruptive editing the moment you were unblocked. Based on your editing history, I wonder why all of your disruptive edittings are targeted towards the Swaminarayan, Pramukh Swami Maharaj and BAPS articles. It is you who face the burden of disclosing your biased edits. Your continued disruptive editing is not setting a clean record on these articles. Your disruptive edits are not sending a positive signal to the Wikipedia community after being unblocked. Please stay away from making further disruptive edits as you may run the risk of being blocked again. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You are only reading a part of the book to selectively post what you want other users to see and read. On page 64 of the Williams book, it clearly states in an exact quote that ‘The history of the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha has not been without controversy and division.’ You have done excessive white washing of this article there for keeping a balance is all I am doing. Then another point that you leave out is that there are two sources that state there has been controversy with the group. The Encyclopedia of Religion states “BAPS activities are not always without controversy, as in its open support of the Sardar Sarovar dam project in Gujarat….”In addition to BAPS's break from the original Swaminarayan satsaṅg, other schisms have occurred.” There is nothing that describes the legal court proceedings that derive the separations of the groups and you use many weasel words WP:WEASEL to push as if this is the correct theology when instead it is an interpretation. I do not think you have read the part for WP:RNPOV where it states “Some adherents of a religion might object to a critical historical treatment of their own faith because in their view such analysis discriminates against their religious beliefs.” There are valid criticisms of all religions when applicable so why should this one be exempt? Is it because maybe this is your religion and you want it to be portrayed a certain way? It is fine to be a member of a group but when you persistently demonstrate conflict of interest then it becomes a problem. Your reverting shows that you have a compulsion with this article with any critical information being added even though it is cited by multiple sources. You even state in your previous response “I will wait for comments before I move it to its appropriate section,” but then you cannot wait for other people to comment so you reverted my edit. You need to breathe and not think that you are the owner of this article. Please do not do this again. Swamiblue (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of WP:WEASEL, this whole section re-naming venture you are pushing is a contentious label. The word that best characterizes the name of the section and is reflective of the long-standing consensus for the section here is schism. The current section title under discussion (schism) does not even come close to any significant criticism as what is written in the sources. There is a substantial lack of notable evidence to suggest that the schism was even remotely controversial. Thus it is an absolute fallacy to propose that it be given that title. Not only given the bleak evidence but also the very spirit of Wikipedia of not taking controversial issues lightly. Thus, I don't see any real reason for changing the name of the section. If you have "substantial" evidence to establish this event merits a controversy - then provide ample sources suggesting the same and let the discussion take place here before making such "direct" changes to the article. In fact, I am going to remove that whole section until further discussion evolves here (See WP:CONS). The plan is to move it in the History section as the sources suggest ("The History of..." in addition to what I have argued earlier). Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from vandalizing the article until consensus is reached.Swamiblue (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I was just reading this section and realized that there is no reasoning provided by the users on why not to have a controversy section regarding the following two citations. Please let me know if anyone disagrees and why?

BAPS activities are not always without controversy, as in its open support of the Sardar Sarovar dam project in Gujarat. For its supporters, the Sardar Sarovar dam and the multi-dam Narmada Valley Development Project of which it is a key component are intended to increase power capacity and provide irrigation, cleaner drinking water, and flood control; for its opponents, the dam is environmentally and socially disastrous and is purchased at the cost of submerging a high percentage of dalit and adivasi villages. The wealthy BAPS organization is criticized by dam opponents for acting to protect its class interests, including those of its land holding members. In response, BAPS followers who are familiar with the Narmada controversy point to the various village relocation and community rehabilitation projects voluntarily instigated and funded by BAPS.

Also the Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindusism book states "Also the Introduction to Swaminarayan Hindusism book states "The history of the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha has not been with out controversy and division. In AD 1966 Dadubhai Patel and his...."

In addition to BAPS's break from the original Swaminarayan satsaṅg, other schisms have occurred. In 1966 a handful of East African BAPS followers broke away and founded the Yogi Divine Society. Additionally, sādhus from the original movement have left to form their own institutions that sometimes (e.g., Swaminarayan Gurukuls) but not always (e.g., Swaminarayan Gadi) retain an affiliation with their gāddī.

Are these citations not enough to warrant a section dedicated to them? Swamiblue (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section Neutrality, Length & Court Proceedings leading to excommunication of Shashtri

I contest the inclusion of "BAPS was established as a formal organization on 5 June 1907 by Shastriji Maharaj based on an interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings. This interpretation is known as Akshar Purushottam Upasana." Using "interpretation" is not only non-neutral (See WP:NPOV) but also is not backed up by any citation. Thus, the current version represents a more neutral and well balanced position. It is neutral to say it was based on the founder's stand. Please add your views below as we try to keep it balanced and neutral.

Proposing that the lead section be reduced does not hold weight either (See WP:LEADLENGTH). Wikipedia policy on lead length states that "The length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article itself". An article that has more that 30,000 characters can have 3 or 4 paragraphs but not more than 4 paragraphs. To be noted that the character count is a count of "readable prose size" (See WP:LENGTH). The BAPS article has a count of 100,742 bytes, and the count of readable prose is at more than 47,062 characters. Thus, the 4 paragraph length is warranted for this article and is in conformance to Wikipedia policies on an article's lead length. As a result, I have reverted to the previous version. The current lead section clearly meets the expectations of what Wikipedia looks for in a lead section both lengthwise and contentwise: "the length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." For the interests of the readers, and a better Wikipedia, the current version reflects well on the article. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 09:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your change. I agree with your length point but the wording that you have selected is very biased. You are choosing the word doctoral over interpretation because you want readers to believe that this is the correct theology of the group when this is obviously splintered group from the original sect. You are clearly violating WP:NPOV by doing this and I understand that you may feel inclined to change because you are a member of the sect itself. The current version is not neutral and does make clear that this group did break off from the original group and the thought is an interpretation with only fragments of secondary texts used for doctrinal evidence.

Swamiblue (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Futhermore many of the pages you cite in this article are extremely biased and blatantly wrong. I have provided citations where the word interpretation is used. Even in the book, An introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism the author writes on page 55. that Shashtri has come to believe and teach that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers that....to be his spiritual successor..." Later on the same page, it states that Members of the Akshar sect do not find this as an innovation because they are "obviously" members of the group. Please refrain from making biased edits or an administrator will have you blocked. Swamiblue (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also there are absolutely no information on the legal proceedings of how this sect separated from the Original group. This article is very biased and was written by a member of the group trying their best to prove to readers that this sect is the correct theology. I call on the main writer of this article to add a section called Legal Proceedings and expand on that section. Also Baps Charties section is way too long and already has its own section and should be summarized and shortened. This information has nothing to do with the formation of the sect. Extremely biased writing here. Please discuss. Swamiblue (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Since length is not an issue, then all the 4 paragraphs will be kept. Wikipedia does not work based on your judgmental reasoning about a length of the article. Clearly shows your bias towards the "length" and total ignorance of Wikipedia policies that has become a basis of the community. The lead section is neutral and does not need any elaboration. If it wasn't, other editors would have objected - since it has been a while here. Your current edit is biased. Your editing history has shown extreme bias towards Swaminarayan and BAPS related articles. And you are quite aware of why you had to be blocked. I won't let your newer edits further disrupt this article. You don't have any specifics as to what and where my edit has any bias and is non-neutral. What "word" have I selected is biased? Wikipedia is not about what you want and not want your readers to read, it is about factual accuracy. I don't want readers to believe anything, it is you who wishes them to believe something. I am here for plain facts. You can't use "interpretation" as you have used because you don't provide any citation. If you can back up with reliable ample sources, there is no reason why it should be removed. It is your own synthesis and Wikipedia's WP:BOLD policy requires such things be immediately removed. It is clearly mentioned in multiple places of the article that this group broke from the original, such as in the History section (Schism and early years). Exactly, we agree on the same page that it was Shastriji Maharaj's beliefs that led to the formation of the organization. It doesn't say "interpretaton" anywhere period. So please stay away from editing Swaminarayan articles unless you have concrete citations to back up your arguments versus using your biased reasoning. Kapil.xerox (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Length is not an issue so that doesn't mean that it can be filled with biased wording. Please do not explain Wikipedia to me and ironically please refrain from ad hominem attacks because I do have a significant history here but that doesn't mean that you get to control the article. I am not longer blocked so keep that in mind when you speak to me. I did make citations and you need to read them when you have time. At this point you are edit warring. Unless you are going to keep reverting, I think you should wait for others to give their input.

Swamiblue (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kapil.xerox that Swamiblue's revisions to the lead section are less WP:NPOV than what was there previously. Specifically, it appears the substitution of doctrinal with interpretation is a way to introduce the idea of "claim" to convey a sense of doubt. Thus, it is slightly more of a loaded word than the neutral expression "doctrinal" which merely states a fact without bias. Sacredsea (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

With regard to Swamiblue's latest edit, it is a version of what he had continued to revert previously and was ultimately blocked for edit warring. Again, I don't see how doctrinal is a loaded term. BAPS a religious group, so the principles they espouse are called their doctrine. There is nothing loaded about that. In this case, their doctrine is centered on Akshar Purushottam. Since the name of the organization includes Akshar Purushottam, I feel that it is important to point out that the name of the group comes from the doctrine they espouse. Thus, I have reverted the changes. Sacredsea (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sacredsea, I am not sure how you see that doctrinal is not loaded word. It implies that it is the correct theology when in fact it is an interpretation of very minor subtexts and verses while complete ignorance of scriptures such as Shikshapatri, Satsangi Jeevan and Desh Vibhag Lehk and many more writings. It must be clarified that this is Shashtri's interpretation for BAPS, not for entire the Swaminarayan Sampraday and other sects. Also, while I have your uniquely selective attention, would you like to give your input on expanding the article for this sect's legal separation and court proceedings? The article is completely devoid of any facts pertaining to the actual split from the group and it seems that you can assist in that. Also don't revert again without reaching a consensus. Getting other members of BAPS to support your thought process also is very biased and results in a poor propaganda article we don't want that. Understand? Thanks Swamiblue (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The word "doctrine" does not imply correct or incorrect, simply that it is the stated position of the group. According to the Random House Dictionary - a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: i.e. Catholic doctrines. So, it is not a loaded word, but interpretation, like "claim" can be seen as more loaded, as I have asserted in my previous post here. In terms of not reverting before consensus is reached, I feel the change Swamiblue makes is actually based on a previous reversion for which he was blocked, so consensus should be attained before the change is made. In any case, the sentence explaining the name of the group has no reason for removal, whereas I have given a reason why it should stay.

Sacredsea (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Sacredsea The word doctrine is being incorrectly and therefore it is misleading readers to think that the akshar purushottam interpretation is based on swaminarayan hinduism when in fact it is not. It must be made clear that shashtri interpreted this doctrine and it is the accepted belief of baps but not the correct theology as explained by swaminarayan. Even for catholic doctrines, it is made clear that is not for christianity as a whole but how the church itself has come to believe their point of view. Doctrine violates WP:NPOV when used incorrectly. It is a loaded word and the sources that is used to back that position up even state: "shashtri believed that" while you are pushing doctrinal and I had provided a citation that used the word interpretation. I am open to using the word believed or interpretation or even claim. An admin told me that " First, don't forget that what is one person's truth is not necessarily another's, so "truth" is an elusive concept." Just because BAPS followers believe that its their doctrine, the wikipedia entry must must clarify in the introduction that is based on a interpretation because it resulted in legal expulsion from the parent group and made the founders status go from sadhu to maharaj and violate principles in the shikshapatri particularly verse 115. Also you seem to be be avoiding discussing the legal schism from the parent group and adding the court proceedings to the article. Is there a reason why?Swamiblue (talk) 17:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that 'doctrine' is a neutral term; to say that it's loaded or misleading is definitely a stretch. The principles that BAPS adopts should be referred to as their doctrine – Akshar Purushottam. Swamiblue, as has already been stated, doctrine does not speak to the veracity of something; yet you are discussing what ‘correct theology’ is. You’re muddying the definition of ‘doctrine.’ Accordingly, I’m reverting the edits. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am sure that user RooneyWayne will be the next to comment. Anyway I did more research and doctrine is appropriate after stating that the doctrine itself was an interpretation. I have five sources to back the correct wording usage of "interpretation" while you have not mentioned any. Also you reverted something without reaching consensus so I will request to have your undo reverted but please next time don't do that. I will let admin User:Bbb23 take a look first and revert before I do. Here are my citations:

American Congregations, Volume 1: Portraits of Twelve Religious Communities Page 619 Gurus of Modern Yoga Page 243

Encounter School of Religion, Butler University. Page 89

I'm a Hindu and I'm a Swaminarayan:" Religion and Identity in the Diaspora by the example of Swaminarayan women in the UK Page 93

Williams on South Asian Religions and Immigration: Collected Works Page 86

Also Actionjackson09, you seem to have the same biased selective reading as kapil.xerox and Sacredsea. When addressing the points that I have been making you only addressed something that would help BAPS portrayed in a positive light but I have repeatedly asked could anyone also discuss the Legal Proceedings and court rulings and it seems that none of you want to address that point. Is there a reason why? There seems to be a certain group of users are collecting together to control the consensus of this article on how it is written but you cannot argue with the citations. Looking at the edit history of this page, a group of users always band together when reaching consensus for anything that might be taken as critical towards baps.

Swamiblue (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swamiblue and Actionjackson09, I already saw the revert by Actionjackson09 and cut the user some slack because they had not been involved in the most recent edit warring. Also, they were not on notice that they could be blocked for reverting. So, here's the deal: (1) Actionjackson09 does not have to self-revert, (2) Actionjackson is now warned that if they revert again while the content dispute is still ongoing, they risk being blocked, and (3) Swamiblue, you cannot revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb23. Is there a reason why you cannot revert or make the change back to interpretation even though there are five sources backing this up. Maybe we can get some users like User:Goethean, User:Redtigerxyz, User:Raj2004, User:Rsrikanth05 and some others input on all of the topics discussed in this section. Currently this article is written like it is promoting this group and is not a neutral point of view, Swamiblue (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@Swamiblue, I've told you before that I will not take a position on the content dispute principally because that would then preclude me from taking administrative action. BTW, please don't indent so deeply; one level more is usual.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanksSwamiblue (talk) 03:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that you finally took the time to list the sources and the page numbers. I would consider that to be a huge step in continuing our discussions here and being able to turn around the issue and swiftly reach a consensus. But you haven't linked the argument you are trying to make and the sources provided. So, here's my ball-by-ball deconstruction of the sources and why they don't cut the change that was made. Before analyzing the sources, let me again go back to what the earlier change was as that is at the center of the current discussion (Note: the text in curly brackets represent the added text): "Organization was formed {based on an interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings}. {This interpretation is known as Akshar Purushottam Upasana }.

American Congregations, Volume 1: Portraits of Twelve Religious Communities Page 619

"The doctrine involves interpretation of two terms in Hindu philosophy: purushottam, the highest supreme person or reality and akshar the abode of god."

User:Swamiblue has taken this citation out of context. Nowhere does it state that the doctrine "is" an interpretation. The word interpretation as used in this context - also has been used in a positive literal which translates into "the action of explaining" [the two Hindu terms]. So essentially it is never saying the doctrine "is" an interpretation, but rather it says the doctrine involves explaining the two terms in Hindu philosophy. Even then it fails to cite X is an interpretation of Swaminarayan's teaching. Clearly, X is an interpretation of Y and Z easily translates into the doctrine is a way of interpreting the two Hindu philosophical entities). Or simply X involves the explanation of Y and Z. This citation fails to address the assertion that User:Swamiblue is trying to make - that of "doctrine X is an interpretation" or "organization was formed on an interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings." Thus, the citation provided clearly lacks evidence of the argument that is being made.

Gurus of Modern Yoga Page 243

"For [devotees], the Vachanamrut is seen as Sahajanand Swami's distillation of the classical Hindu texts such as [author goes on to list major Hindu texts such as Veda, Upanishad] giving lessons for those hoping to leave the cycle of death and birth. It is also the central text from which the founder located the source of his interpretation of Sahajanand Swami as Bhagwan and Gunatitanand Swami as Akshar"

It is a total fallacy to conclude that this citation states that the doctrine is an interpretation. It is noteworthy to point out the context in which this text has been presented. The only thing that can be deduced here is that the founder found his source of understanding (note again the positive literal meaning of the word interpretation as used to mean an action of explaining things). Thus, I see this as purely User:Swamiblue's synthesis (See WP:OR on Wikipedia's policy of no original research).

I wasn't able to locate the following texts: Encounter School of Religion, Butler University. Page 89 and " I'm a Hindu and I'm a Swaminarayan:" Religion and Identity in the Diaspora by the example of Swaminarayan women in the UK" Page 93 and Williams on South Asian Religions and Immigration: Collected Works Page 86 I would urge User:Swamiblue to provide the placement text.

Seeing User:Swamiblue synthesis of these sources and violation of WP:OR while trying to support their arguments through these two sources makes me equally believe that User:Swamiblue's remaining sources may also have been taken out of context as in trying to Google search loose terms in an attempt to provide a citation for a WP:OR statement and incorrectly believe the citation serves the purpose. I would be more interested to see other editors voicing out their arguments as we try to smoothly reach a consensus. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe Kapil.xerox correctly explains why User:Swamiblue suggestion violates WP:OR. Moreover User:Swamiblue has not adequately addressed either of the arguments that I had previously made regarding the point about name of the organization, which he had removed, or the issue of violation of WP:CLAIM by substituting the word interpretation for doctrine. Also I had made a revision to the article and explained why I had done so in this thread. Naturally, I am going to limit my explanation to the changes that I had made, and not get distracted by other things not related to the changes in question. But to address another point made in the talk page, the article isn't just about the formation of the organization, but about the organization as a whole, so its charitable activities should be included. The section is a condensed description which is elaborated upon in the BAPS Charities page. Sacredsea (talk) 02:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the citations are going to need scholars to interpret whether we should use the word interpret. Anyway before I continue, I am going ask you again like I already have on User:Bbb23’s talk page since I do not want to make any assumptions: User:Kapil.xerox are you affiliated or are you a member of BAPS? I strongly believe you are a member of the sect and have strong conflict of interest based on your meticulous and biased editing history on BAPS related articles and violate so many rules in WP:COIN. Please disclose this before responding any further. You have contentiously edited away any controversy and criticism regard BAPS and Swaminarayan. There is no possible way that as an editor you have any good faith intention of presenting Swaminarayan articles unbiasedly as you never allow any discussion regarding this topic and focus on making scattered responses, calling on friends to reach a consensus and blatantly disregard points from users like myself who have spent years researching this matter from a neutral standpoint. If it is not clear “ A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.”

Now with addressing the selective points that were made:

I will break down each source and show how user:Kapil.xerox cherry picks from the citations so that when he responds here, it makes it look like he fully read the source when in fact he only points out things that are in portraying baps in a certain type of way.

American Congregations, Volume 1: Portraits of Twelve Religious Communities Page 619

“Shashtri Maharaj also taught a doctrine considered heretical by leaders in Vadtal, that Swaminarayan had appointed one of his close followers, Gunatitanand Swami, to be his spiritual successor. He taught that Swaminarayan promised that he would always be manifest in the world among his devotees in the person of his chief, perfect devotee who thereby becomes the “abode of god.” This doctrine involces interpretation of two terms in Hindu Philosophy: purushottam, the highest supreme person or reality and akshar the abode of god. Shashtri Maharaj tauaght that akshar has two forms….”

Notice the author’s state that this is Shashtri’s thought and specify multiple times that Shastri taught this philosophy.

Gurus of Modern Yoga Page 243

“The various Swaminarayan groups recognize the historical person of Sahajanand Swami, who is the founder of the Swaminarayan sampradaya, but there are differences in the interpretation of Sahajanand Swami’s ontological position whether as god, avatar or guru.”

Encounter School of Religion, Butler University. Page 89

“The place of the preceptor, not only in the sect but also in the divine hierarchy, is developed by an interpretation of the relation between two metaphysical terms which are central to the complex theology and philosophy to the sect: Purushottam and Akshar.”

I'm a Hindu and I'm a Swaminarayan:" Religion and Identity in the Diaspora by the example of Swaminarayan women in the UK Page 93

“Swamini Vato and Vacanämrta today at the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha regular meetings in the preferred art of recitation and interpretation.” For personal piety, Shikshapathri is of the utmost importance , from her to read at least five daily sayings believers.

Again with the use of the word interpretation and also page 59-60 from Williams Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism also makes use of the word interpretation state how the judge viewed the new groups presentation setting forward a the primary theological claims of the new group.

Brideless in Wembley By Sanjay Suri Page 183

"A split in the Vadtal group led to the creation of the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha, the group that has built the talked about temples in London, Gandhinagar and Delhi. Shastri Maharaj believed that Swaminarayan had appointed his close follower Gunatitanand Swami (1785-1867) as his spiritual successor, and that Swaminarayan would always be manifest in the world through his chief devotee. This was the beginning of the sect that believed in a living personification of Swaminarayan, god to them, that is. The Vadtal sadhus feared Shastri Maharaj would place the images of Gunatitanand Swami in temples, and opposed Shastri Maharaj. And so he left with his supporters and the Akshar Purushottam Sanstha was born."

Overall six citations use various word including interpretation including synonyms such as belief, claim, thought and then state that this become to be known as the baps philosophy. This is not original research or synthesis because they are all pointing to the same conclusion. Bringing that up in itself makes me wonder that this user is not contesting any statement with more than one citation. The result is that Shashtri interpreted this philosophy from reading scriptures, not the scriptures stating that this is the correct theology. Even the judge during the case of legal separation states that BAPS has a new separate distinct theology.

In regards to User talk:Sacredsea, you state that the article isn't just about the formation of the organization, but about the organization as a whole so why aren't the legal proceedings properly addressed in this article so it explains how legally the schism occurred? Choosing "to limit your explanation to the changes that your had made, and not get distracted by other things not related to the changes in question" is ignorant and lazy and shows biased tendencies to promote BAPS rather than have balance article. The BAPS charities section way too long and a repeat of all the information on the actual page making this article pointlessly long even though you claim that it is a condensed description. You and Kapil.xerox are using straw arguments to continue to further an agenda which is detrimental to Wikipedia.

Let’s get some new perspectives to come forward and utilize the citations and comments fully. Swamiblue (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The two sources Swamiblue has cited do not indicate that the BAPS was founded in 1907 after a legal separation. As the edit is a false statement of fact, I am reverting to the previous stable version of the lead section. HinduPundit (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

(An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism page 58,60)

Distinguishing Beliefs

BAPS has distinguishing beliefs than many other sansthas (branches) in the Swaminarayan sect do not have. One of which is a spiritual guru (teacher) that leads all in the present time and that takes jivas (souls) to Akshardham (heaven). People that go to BAPS have worshiped other gurus as well from the past. The order from earliest to present: Swaminarayan (lord), Gunatitanand Swami (also known as Akshar; is the abode of Swaminarayan hence the name Akshardham), Bhagatji Maharaj, Shastriji Maharaj, Yogiji Maharaj, and finally the present guru Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Another distinguishing belief from the BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha is of Akshar-Purushottam. This doctrine states that Akshar is the abode, and Purushottam is the lord, thus one has to worship Purushottam to go to Akshar. Many sansthas of the past criticized this belief. The people of BAPS also believe that the present guru is like a helping hand to go to Akshardham, thus they stress the need of the worship of the guru. --Kpsthakkar (talk) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

whaaaaat???????? this is definitely not hinduism . whaaaaaaaaaaat????

guru takes you to heaven sounds like applegate maybe more like christianity or islam — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.133 (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Akshar Purushottam Upasana Article outlines some of these beliefs. Its in the article. I think this info that you want to add is realted to this article. Tjis article is mainly about the organization itself. The other article talks about the beliefs ^The Wo rld 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent reverts

I haven't read the topics above nor do I have a particular inclination to do so. However whoever is advocating for the phrases "revealed", "Lord", and "His Holiness" please stop and read WP:NPOV and WP:HONORIFIC. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that those phrases should not be in the article.Sacredsea (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I normally see now and then some "editior" would add or re-add them. Mostly, unregistered users unfamiliar with Wikipedia polices. It is a pain cleaning those up - but I think we have kept it going good for now. Cheers! Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted some changes by Swamiblue that were not sourced correctly and which were factually deficient. The reason for Shastriji Maharaj's decision was a doctrinal issue larger than one of just succession. Sacredsea (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am going to revert your revert of my edit. I thought it was vandalism. Members of BAPS may believe it was a doctrinal issue but to the people who are unfamiliar with the schism that occurred, it should be clarified that it is exactly that. Also would you disclose if you are a member of this group as it would create a conflict of interest as per WP:COI and [1]. Thanks Swamiblue (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

BAPS

The organization should realize that their guiness world records recognition is a fake. Many hindus do not have the same beliefs as this branch and maybe it should not even be considered hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.209.165 (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Harililakalpataru

I cannot find the cited English version of this book. Does anyone know where it can be found so the text in this article can verify the statements it correlates to in this article? I do NOT want secondary texts, publishing from aksharpith or writings by HT Dave but the cited book. I will wait some time.Swamiblue (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Acharaya for BAPS and addition of the term Schism to article

Is there a reason that the following statement should not be added to the article? "Plans were made after court proceedings and lawsuits to appoint an acharaya for BAPS from the family of Swaminarayan but this was never implemented."

I believe that is demonstrates the thinking of the founder's of BAPS mindset at the time knowing that that ALL of the scriptures require fuctions of a acharaya but eventually they choose not to follow this route.

Also I propose that we change the sectioned titled Foundation and Early Years to Schism and Early Years because this is where the divide occurred for readers to understand the two separate groups.

Swamiblue (talk) 03:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I will wait a little bit more until I add this section in myself as this has been unopposed for some time.Swamiblue (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think this first point would violate WP:BALASPS. There must be thousands of plans by BAPS leaders that were not implemented. Do all of BAPS's unimplemented plans merit mention within the short space of the article? As explained according to WP:BALASPS, I don't think so. Moreover, Swamiblue's stated rationale for mentioning this includes his own statements on what BAPS founders were thinking, which is his own conjecture, and not backed up by any sources (that is, how can he know what they were thinking? the sources do not shed any light on their mental processes). Thus, it does not appear there is any good reason to include this. On the second point regarding title change, with the founding of any new religious group, there is typically a split from an older one. For example, when Joseph Smith founded the Mormon church, he broke away from the Methodist and other protestant churches. So, in describing the early years of the Mormon church, the early years of Christianity, or the early years of any other religion, do we use the title Beginnings, or Foundation, or Establishment, or do we use the terms Schism, or Breaking Away? If we frame the article from the perspective of the topic of the article, which is what we should do, then it would be "the beginnings", but if we frame the article from the perspective of the group that they broke away from, we would title it schism. I believe that framing the article from the perspective of the group they broke away from is passing a judgement, and not in line with the principles of WP:NPOV. I would be interested to hear other opinions. Sacredsea (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the weightage deficiency, I would also think it doesn't merit inclusion. Since, it was a point made in the preamble by-laws of the organization and occupies a fringe space in the overall article content. If I am not mistaken, I haven't seen anything else written about this in other scholarly works - showing its lack of prominence. I agree with User:Sacredsea, the other statements made by User:Swamiblue constitute WP:OR. And with regards to re-naming, I would think "schism" is misleading - since the historical account clearly delineates that Shastriji Maharaj did not consider himself having left the old school but had to leave. See the three in-line citations for details. So, it would be incorrect to title it as "schism". Though, there already has been mention of this in the section itself and a link at the end that points to the same - in the Shastriji Maharaj's article - which I would consider also be renamed. Let's also try to amend that as we discuss here. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I am recopying below the portions of the above discussion that are relevant to the title change issues and WP:NPOV issues that are being raised by User:Swamiblue's edits so that it is clear to them why I am reverting. In addition to my comment, Kapil.xerox has agreed with me on this point.

"On the second point regarding title change, with the founding of any new religious group, there is typically a split from an older one. For example, when Joseph Smith founded the Mormon church, he broke away from the Methodist and other protestant churches. So, in describing the early years of the Mormon church, the early years of Christianity, or the early years of any other religion, do we use the title Beginnings, or Foundation, or Establishment, or do we use the terms Schism, or Breaking Away? If we frame the article from the perspective of the topic of the article, which is what we should do, then it would be "the beginnings", but if we frame the article from the perspective of the group that they broke away from, we would title it schism. I believe that framing the article from the perspective of the group they broke away from is passing a judgement, and not in line with the principles of WP:NPOV. I would be interested to hear other opinions. Sacredsea (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Based on the weightage deficiency, I would also think it doesn't merit inclusion. Since, it was a point made in the preamble by-laws of the organization and occupies a fringe space in the overall article content. If I am not mistaken, I haven't seen anything else written about this in other scholarly works - showing its lack of prominence. I agree with User:Sacredsea, the other statements made by User:Swamiblue constitute WP:OR. And with regards to re-naming, I would think "schism" is misleading - since the historical account clearly delineates that Shastriji Maharaj did not consider himself having left the old school but had to leave. See the three in-line citations for details. So, it would be incorrect to title it as "schism". Though, there already has been mention of this in the section itself and a link at the end that points to the same - in the Shastriji Maharaj's article - which I would consider also be renamed. Let's also try to amend that as we discuss here. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)"

Sacredsea (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The book Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism which is heavily used as a citation for multiple points throughout this article has a dedicated chapter called Growth Administration and Schism where BAPS is deeply discussed as a Schism. Why should there not be a mention of the word Schism if that is what exactly occurred? Swamiblue (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid that Swamiblue is once again engaged in edit-warring on a Swaminarayan-related page. The talk page post in this section the section immediately above this have discussed this issue at considerable length and there exists a general consensus not to accept the changes Swamiblue repeatedly keeps insisting on. And yet, he continues edit-warring, so I will revert. Sacredsea (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring Sacredsea. You are reverting my edit with out explaining why you think the word schism is unnecessary especially since in the main npov book Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism, BAPS formation is discussed and labeled as a Schism. Shastriji didn't think he was leaving because he choose to believe in a interpretation. He is considered excommunicated because he left the Swaminarayan Sampraday and there is no way to assume that a reader will understand that if it is not stated. Please address this point before requesting to revertSwamiblue (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I have clearly stated in my post above that the explanation that Sacredsea is seeking has already been made in the talk page post above, particularly the March 31 and April 8 posts in this section by myself and Kapil.xerox and indirectly in the previous talk page post. There currently exists in this section of the talk page discussion, which has been going on since March, a general consensus of 2 to 1 against incorporating Swamiblue's edits. Based on that, I have reverted the edits. So, by not respecting this general consensus/ insisting on forcing their own edits without reaching consensus, I felt that Swamiblue is continuing to engage in a pattern of edit-warring which has been ongoing. Since the Schism issue has been directly addressed, in my opinion, I would address the second sentence of the post - namely :"Shastri didn't think he was leaving because he is considered vimukh (excommunicated) because he left the Swaminarayan Sampraday." except that the English is so tortured, I am not sure what is being said in that sentence. So I would urge anyone interested in this discussion to read through the March 31 and April 8 posts which addresses the exact question User:Swamiblue is asking, and share their opinions on that.Sacredsea (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have updated the clarity in the English. No reason to personally attack my English for that. Could have just asked for some clarity. I will ask some other folks to take a look at that. The older posts do not discuss the fact that the major citation call it a schism. Swamiblue (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It’s evident that Swamiblue is ignoring the general consensus reached in this section of the talk page the and is engaging in edit warring. Accordingly, I've reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actionjackson09 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is the doctrinal origins heading in the History section relevant?

Are the headings of this article correctly labeled from the content? Swamiblue (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Swamiblue , Which photo in History? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello User talk:Redtigerxyz I am not clear what photo you are referring to. Would you please provide your input to this [2] discussion? ThanksSwamiblue (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I see the word photo and I don't know why that is there but I know I had an issue with doctrinal origins. That implies to a reader that this was the original group. Also the heading should state that the guru left the other group to create this organization because it is unclear to the reader how this group was formed.Swamiblue (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion has stopped, was close to the auto-close date anyway, and the RfC creator (Swamiblue) has been blocked for 2 months due to "edit-warring" (notice on talk page, here). Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 00:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Providing proof for last edit (which were removed by Wiki)

My edit, "which is considered as breaking of Sikshapatri's Shlok No:71 and hence they are considered as Vimukha (those who are out of Swaminarayan Sampraday)" was removed. So I am attaching proof for that. It is Sikshapatri (The main Scripture of Swaminarayan Sampraday, written by Lord Swaminarayan himself , having 212 Shloks (orders)) In this link : 1)Gujarati-Sanskrit PDF : http://data.sydneytemple.org/literature/gujarati/shikshapatri.pdf 2) for English version please visit this site : http://www.swaminarayan.in/theme/blue/Book_PDF/Shik-Eng.pdf

How it is a breaking of Shlok-71 and how BAPS is considered out of original Swaminarayan Sampraday(according to Shlok no :207), 1) Sikshapatri Shlok no :71 - "My disciple shall never enter into arguments with their Acharya, but honour and serve him by offering food, money, clothing, etc., according to their abilities." this shlok says :My disciple should not go against my Achary . -As it is described in whole wiki page of BAPS, that Shashtriji Maharaj had founded his own organization on 5 June 1907 , (they removed themselves from main original Swaminarayan Sampraday and its Acharyas (Leaders of Sampraday). Original Swaminarayan Sampraday founded by lord Swaminarayan has 2 Acharyas (One Achary is from Vadtal [Current : Achary Shree Rakeshprasadji Maharaj]and one is from Ahmedabad [Current : Achary Shree Kaushalendraprasadji Maharaj]) . As BAPS is individual organization separated from Original Swaminarayan Sampradayand, believing Pramukh Swami Maharaj (successor of founder Shashtriji Maharaj) at its Guru (Master) (for more you can visit original/official Swaminarayan sampraday's any website 1) Vadtal Official website : https://www.vadtalmandir.org/ 2) Ahmedabad Official website : http://www.swaminarayan.in/ they donot include any of BAPS organization's temple , clear breaking of Shlok No;71)

2) And at the end of Sikshapatri, in shlok no : 207 - "My male and female disciples shall understand that those who do not follow the precepts of this Shikshapatri shall be considered as excommunicated from our Sampradaya" .

So I added that line.Please readd- "which is considered as breaking of Sikshapatri's Shlok No:71 and hence they are considered as Vimukha (those who are out of Swaminarayan Sampraday)"

-Please add line which I above mentioned and removed by wiki. Regards, Vivekchotaliya (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Is the longer version for the section entitled BAPS Charities in the BAPS article needed when the link to BAPS charities is included?

Please compare the edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bochasanwasi_Shri_Akshar_Purushottam_Swaminarayan_Sanstha&type=revision&diff=715965676&oldid=715609474 and provide your suggestion. Swamiblue (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes the longer summary is necessary because the relationship between BAPS Organization and BAPS Charities is not explicitly clear. If there indeed is a significant overlap between BAPS organization members and BAPS Charities activists, a shorter summary falls markedly short of the requisite that an article be comprehensively informative. This overrides any risk of redundancy. Tale.Spin (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I read over the page and saw the two versions. Without the full inclusion, it is difficult to draw a clear connection between the two entities. Since the two entities are significantly connected, in the interest of WP:DUE, it makes sense to include this extended section in the article. In a case such as this, I recommend User:Swamiblue to cease edit-warring with the repeated and significant changes (see WP:WAR). I also skimmed over the rest of the talk page and noticed that User:Swamiblue has revived this debate even when it reached consensus and ended earlier. I recommend the user to Get Over It WP:GOI, stop beating this dead horse WP:DEADHORSE. The user has already been banned once for this, and it would be in the best interest of the user to discontinue such disruptive editing and learn to lose gracefully (see: Wikipedia:How to lose). --Tardispower (talk) 05:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Worker Exploitation

How can we include the recent allegations of abuse on worker exploitation into the lead of this article? Jimmy8Johnz (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed that two users recently added a controversy section to this article in which they added the content about the worker lawsuit filed against a New Jersey BAPS Temple. However, according to WP:CSECTION, it is "Often it is best to integrate the negative criticism into the article: negative information is woven throughout the article in the appropriate topical sections." In accordance with these guidelines, the lawsuit information seems already integrated into the appropriate section that deals with the history of BAPS from 2016 to present. I think this better addresses the issue under the larger WP:NPOV policy. Moreover, according to WP:RECENT I think that adding this information to the lead would be giving it undue weight with too much weight being given to breaking news. I have removed the controversy subsection as the information is currently already in the article at the relevant place. Happy to discuss this further! ThaNDNman224 (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I added it to the lead because I know nothing about the sect and wasn't sure where it should go (the article is way too detailed and confusing, imo) but it looks like it has ended up in the right place. A controversy section for a single "controversy" is unnecessary and possibly undue. --RegentsPark (comment) 14:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a note of this in the 2016 ongoing section. I encourage editors to gather facts there and refrain from deleting information with valid references. Avindratalk 14:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to RegentsPark and Aavindraa. The abuse of workers is outrageous and BAPS is well known for their subjugation of women and exploitation of workers. This article is written as an advertisement so some balance is needed. Jimmy8Johnz (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. I see several concerns with the current description of the investigation. Firstly, the current language is written as a rather lengthy summary of the NYT article. According to WP:NOTNEWS, content on Wikipedia is not written in news style and events and Wikipedia “should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories.” In accordance with WP:PROPORTION, even if discussions of recent events are verifiable and impartial, inclusion can still be disproportionate to overall significance of the article topic. Therefore, I believe language should not summarize the news report, nor should it give excessive significance to this incident in the context of the larger article.

I agree with RegentsPark that a controversy section for a single investigation would give undue weight to this single incident. WP:STRUCTURE informs us that we can achieve more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative rather than isolating them into sections.

Given these concerns, I have edited the description of the investigation in the article to better align with these aforementioned Wikipedia policies. Kind regards, PinkElixir (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Long-term POV pushing

A sockpuppet investigation has uncovered evidence of extensive years-long POV-pushing by at least six editors (with five more under review) regarding BAPS. The disruption to this article has been extensive; please see the documentation at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard § Systematic NPOV review needed in the BAPS topic area. This article will need to be thoroughly reviewed for content that paints BAPS in an unencyclopedically positive light, and its history will need to be reviewed for instances of relevant negative information being removed. For now, I have tagged this page with a {{POV}} tag. -- Tamzin (she/they) | o toki tawa mi. 04:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a looooooot of repetition in this article; I'm cleaning it up now, but my, what a job. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:59, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Lawsuit

@Ram112313: you removed, three times, the mentioning of the lawsuit in the lead, claiming diff that Kbhatt you have a long term pov of anti baps as well as the consensus being made with user PinkElixer Aavindra and other users that were not sockpuppeted and banned. The consensus is made. This was reorganized and a paragraph regarding it already exists. The first part is a personal attackt, which you should refrain from. The second part, referring to a consensus, obviously insinuating that there is a consensus not to have this info in the lead. You're referring to Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha#Worker Exploitation. RegentsPark added this info to the lead. Avindra actually wrote There is a note of this in the 2016 ongoing section. I encourage editors to gather facts there and refrain from deleting information with valid references. PinkElixir wrote I have edited the description of the investigation in the article to better align with these aforementioned Wikipedia policies. So, obviously, you're diting against consensus when removing this info. To this you can add the fact that you're reverted now by three different editors. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:57, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll also add that the discussion above concluded that a single investigation was probably too little for it to be covered in the lead. Howver, I see that the lawsuit has expanded to many BAPS temples across the US and, since the scale has expanded, the previous consensus no longer stands. As JJ says above, you've been reverted by 3 different editors so, effectively, including a mention in the lead is the new consensus. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

@Ram112313: I actually haven't edited much Baps content except some clean up after the socks were banned. All my edits were sourced and any content I removed was improperly sourced. You are welcome to show otherwise. I will gladly justify any edits I made that seem ill-intended on my own talk page to not sidetrack here. Still out of respect, I wont cast a vote towards consensus either way unless requested. I simply reverted because you cited consensus from mostly banned users over 3-4 other users who suggested the opposite such as Dradityakhetan and FactCheck105 as well as what JJ outlined above. In terms of the content itself, this has evolved significantly since the original discussion to allegations and investigation of violations of the RICO act. see:https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/nyregion/baps-hindu-forced-labor.html. The Rico act is reserved for entities involved in racketeering and some pretty serious violations. Previously used against the Mob, mafia, and other organized crime. These are some pretty serious allegations and a majority of coverage that not just this branch of the faith has received but outweighs the entire faith in recent months. Either way simply engage in finding consensus on the talk page instead of revert battles and personal attacks. cheers Kbhatt22 (talk)