Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Disputed

I have added some infomation regarding the background it should stay here because its all facts and relevent links to this sect.

I have added a disputed tag to this article, because it is not written from a neutral point of view. I will try to re-work the content into an form that is acceptable for the wikipedia. --Goethean 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please do. It's beyond me. Also, there is an editor who apparently disles this group and has both added obscurely disparaging remarks about this group, and has repeatedly removed references to it from another article, Swaminarayan. -Willmcw 02:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)

Changed. --goethean ॐ 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

I fail to see how a "conference paper" can be accepted as fact. It is extremely biased to use one person's opinion on a matter and represent them as fact. Presenting information in this manner does not promote neutrality, it promotes misinformation and propoganda.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.91.178 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 28 October 2005.

The article doesn't accept the paper as fact. The article merely mentions that the paper exists. — goethean ॐ 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The paper itself is not relevant to the faith, yet you present it as part of the article. I have read other various articles about on religion(ie Islam, Christianity, etc.) on wikipedia and in these articles they do not present any "conference papers" or political ties inside the article themselves. In the article on Christianity I do not see links to papers on thier ties to the Republican Party. On articles on Islam I do not see paper or link on thier ties to extremist militant groups. I therefore conclude that political ties whether true or not should not be represented in the article to offer a neutral opinion. How come this article is bieng held as an exception and places information in the Article based solely on a single "paper"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.85.91.178 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2005.

That's a false analogy, because BAPS does not equal Hinduism. Nor, for that matter is it a seperate world religion on the scale of Islam or Christianity. And in the article on Evangelicalism, one does find a discussion of its politics. — goethean ॐ 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Aside from this paper which I cannot find on the internet and therefore cannot reference, I did not find any well documentated evidence of the claims made by this person and her paper. So I belive what you wrote in this Article is based on your opinion of what BAPS represents and what information you would like to include and exclude.

Please assume good faith. From the article history, it looks like the link stopped working, and someone removed it. I will attempt to find bibliographic data for the paper. — goethean ॐ 18:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

With all do respect, you had ample time to find the source material related to the point of view expressed in the "BAPS in Gujurat" section. In the interest of fairness, since the source is missing and no longer available, the information should be removed.

Is there some reason that we doubt the truthfulness of the summary that we have in the article? If you are the same editor as user:68.85.91.178 then you've already reviewed it before. We are we deleting it? -Will Beback 03:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not that I doubt the truthfulness. There are several questions here that are unanswered and despite any resolution to those questions, the article is bieng presented as factual. Some things I feel should be addressed is: Is it appropriate to make a statement or a summary based on a single article without verifying the information with another source? Is it appropriate to present material in which the source can not be referenced by others to review? If the article is availble for review, which it has not been for quite some times, does the article properly justify its conclusions and properly cite the credible sources for those justifications? So until these questions can be addressed I dont feel we should present the material/summary(in "BAPS in Gujurat") in the BAPS article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

So, then, is your point that information which is presented as factual but doesn't have multiple listed references should be deleted? That's about half of the article. Including:

• BAPS is a branch of the Hindu Swaminarayan sect with more than 1,000,000 followers worldwide and a greater presence outside South Asia than any other Hindu group.
• According to his followers, Pramukh Swami Maharaj represents the essence of Hinduism, leading an austere life of complete celibacy, without personal wealth or comfort. His compassion for humanity, universal wisdom and striking simplicity have touched many world religious and national leaders as well as ordinary devotees alike.
• Part of BAPS' success lies in its approach, which is characteristic of other monotheistic religions — namely their centralization and huge organizational strength, their emphasis on community, their notions of salvation through belief in Sahajanand Swami Maharaj (Lord Swaminarayan) as the supreme Lord, adherence to strict doctrine, and even trace elements of proselytization. Many mainstream Hindus find themselves attracted to this and start identifying with BAPS. Although some see only minor theological implications in such a conversion, others see the doctrinal differences as quite distinct. The fact that BAPS devotees worship Swaminayaran Bhagwan as higher than Sri Ram or Sri Krishna is quite alarming to most traditional Hindus.

I'm all for removing unsourced info. But don't set the bar too high or there won't be any article. Will Beback 02:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your second bullet as well as parts of the third bullet above can be cross-referenced through the oragization's website. I would agree with removing the rest of the material above. I would like to point out that the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs. Im not sure if this classifies as a false analogy but for example the Pope would have more authority about whats factual about how the Catholic church operates and the church's beliefs than a college student writing a thesis paper. In any case, Its not possible to cross-reference any of the material in the "BAPS in Gujurat", so I feel that should also be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

...the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs.

That's an absurd idea. Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations, including Roman Catholicism, Evangelical Protestantism, Theosophy and gurus such as Sathya Sai Baba. These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki. — goethean ॐ 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well that is certainly your opinion. Also I never said any organization has authority over a Wikipedia article. The material presented on a wikipedia article should be neutral. But I think it would be improper just to throw information into an article which cannot be cross-referenced or be verified in anyway in order to create a false sense of neutrality. And in order to be fair, I did say that we should also remove some of the content referenced in the bullets by Will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.81.18.53 (talk • contribs) .

• This really isn't the place for critiques, I don't see critiques of the roman catholic church in the article on catholocism, it would be better if it was placed in the article on hindu nationalism

Reply: There are many article on Roman Catholicsm, including several entire articles of criticism, such as Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, even a whole category, Category:Anti-Catholicism. While it perhaps should also be mentioned in Hindu nationalism, that doesn't mean it should be remoevd from here. -Will Beback 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Move to (full form of BAPS)

Shouldn't this be moved to Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha (with a redirect from BAPS, of course), as per WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles ? --Kprateek88 09:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think thats a good suggestion, my only question is whether or not BAPS is known to most people as Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Puruthottsam Swaminarayan Sanstha. WP:NCA#Acronyms as words in article titles says "Avoid the use of acronyms in page naming unless the term you are naming is almost exclusively known by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form (NASA, SETI, and radar are good examples)." Whilst members of BAPS would know what the acronym stands for, I'm quite certain that most others who know of BAPS do not know it as the full title. Saying that, it certainly wouldn't hurt to list BAPS under a page with the full title.

Suggested Edit

Please find below a suggested edit of this page. It removes all POVs I could see and expands other areas. Any suggestions? The layout is obviously not right, I removed as much formatting as possible so it would be easy to view here in 'Discussion' 86.134.109.197 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• moved to Talk:BAPS/draft

Unfortunately I dont see how this shlok clears up the issue. There are various shloks in the shikshapatri that followers of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi do not adhere to. Take shlok 136 for example:

"They shall never remain in a secluded place even with their mother, sisters, or daughters (who may be of young age), except in the strictest emergencies, and shall never give away their wives to anybody."

Can you tell me that each and every man who says he belongs to the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi has never been in a room alone with either his mother, sister, or daughter? Whilst I am not by anymeans questioning the authority of the Shikshapatri, I must point out that by your standards, the majority of people who call themselves Swaminarayan are actually excomunicated because they have not followed the above rules.

May I also point out shlokas 153 and 154:

"When facing natural disaster, famine, or harassment from enemies or rulers, which may result in loss of prestige, property, or life, my followers shall move away without hesitation and migrate to some other place where they can live in peace." and "My followers who are wise and discreet shall immediately leave that place even if it is their birthplace, the place of their livelihood, or an inherited estate."

It was because of these very shloks that Shastri Yagnapurushdas left Vadtal. So, infact, he was following the Shikshapatri by leaving.

Naturally you'll still edit the article. Somebody else with revert it. Somebody else will edit it. Somebody else will revert it. The issues Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi have with BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha are not going to be resolved on Wikipedia. I do hope everybody understands that. Dylanpatel 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't wish to enter into a debate here on Wikipedia. I will, however, say this: Your above argument is based entirely on the assumption that a) Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi followers all strive to follow the Shikshapatri and b) all followers of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha do not. Yes, your position as a follower of the Ahmedabad/Vadtal Gadi grants you the perogative to speak on behalf of your satsangis somewhat, but without being a BAPS follower there is no way whatsoever that you can claim BAPS followers do not strive to follow the Shikshapatri. Any comments to that effect are clearly biased. I could just as easily claim devotees of the Ahmedabad and Vadtal Gadi's are vimookh because they dont follow the commandmants of the Vachanamrut. That, however, would be a gross generalisation, and probably not true. Just as your comment was. For the record, the reason for not wanting to enter into a debate isn't because I 'know I can't win' or other such nonsense. It's simply because I dont believe this is the right place for such discussion. I don't wish to speak on behalf of a million BAPS followers. I just thought I'd clear that up before comments were made.

Regards,

Dylanpatel 11:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan

BAPS is a sect of the Swaminarayan faith and it's the largest and fastest growing branch.

Translation of BAPS

There seems to be some disagreement about whether the current translation of Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha is correct, or even necessary. I personally don't think it is needed, however if it is decided that it is, I don't feel the current translation is correct. I would translate it as the following:

The Akshar-Purushottam Swaminarayan Organisation of Bochasan, with 'Akshar-Purushottam' reffering to the name of the deities of the sect, and the name of the philosophy that the sect is based upon. Dylanpatel 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I DO think it should translated, otherwise, who knows what means? But otherwise you do have a point in your second paragraph and I'll make a change shortly and we can work it out. Tuncrypt 22:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have a quick question about the use of Swaminarayan in BAPS...does BAPS not stand for Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha. I am confused with the inclusion of Swaminarayan in the title. Could someone please address this. Also if there is a citation for this particular issue, please include in your reply.--71.252.141.47 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Sona

A quick look at the bottom of the BAPS homepage will show that the official name of the organisation is "Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha" I think BAPS decided 'BAPS' would be more memorable and reable than 'BSAPSS' (A common practice by organisations/companies etc) Dylanpatel 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I propose the following changes to this article in an attempt to restructure this article to Wikipedia standards.

1. Expand the Religion & Spiritual section to provide claims for existence - combine Title section; possible rename to Philosophy?
2. Create new article for BAPS Care International
3. Remove redundancies in terms of links

Feedback? Moksha88 20:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Moksha88. Someone had organized the list of centers into a table, which looked much better, but it seems to be back to the lengthy list format again. You know how to organize it into three / four columns? wildT 13:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly but your help is greatly appreciated! Moksha88 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah -- the article, and you, are hopelessly slanted. The opposing POV in this paper should also be addressed: namely, that instead of "Promote harmony and peaceful coexistence among all communities through understanding and co-operation", BAPS has endorsed the Hindutva movement and all the slaughter that has implied, eg. the Ayodhya thing. Jpatokal 10:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article link, Jpatokal. You might want to consider that BAPS *actively* promoted peace after the terrorist attack on their akshardham templ which killed 30+ people. Had they not done so, riots could have happened on a larger scale across the country. The article you mention looks like an academic one but reads hopelessly like a POV one. It would probably not qualify for being a Wikipedia artcle! Just one of the articles on this peaceful response is here. wildT 12:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Great. So please add the article's view, and then the opposing view from Tribune, and then both will be represented. Jpatokal 08:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandal edit

Have restored plain text from earlier version - after a vandal had removed the text and photo from 'Spiritual Guru' section. Hope someone can improve this back to the previous version with hyperlinks and the photo of the guru. wildT 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Pramukh Swami

Added Pramukh Swami Maharaj name in introduction paragraph, as he is identified with this faith today. wildT (talk) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

AKA BAPA

Don't keep putting this on. Its pointless.    Juthani1    15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "UN":

• From Pramukh Swami Maharaj: "Pramukh Swami at the UN". IndianExpress.com. 2000-09-11. Retrieved 2008-01-15.
• From India: "India and the United Nations". Retrieved 2006-04-22.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

BAPS Excommunication

Moved here From talk page of User:AroundTheGlobe and User:World (as it is pertinent to this article)

Interesting addition to the information below - in the same reference book (Williams), the sentence about Yagnapurushdas leaving the Vadtal sansthan is followed by this : "It may well be that the immorality of the acharya . . . created a condition that caused Yagnapurushdas to leave the temple." That doesnt sound like an excommunication to me. Again, this is a matter for discussion - User:Around the Globe and User:World, you're senior to me in terms of editing these pages, so I'll wait for your response. Hope to get your response in a week. Thanks. wildT (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

We have gone over this several times now! Per earlier discussions, this was moved off Swaminarayan and retained on BAPS and Sampraday pages. It is a major point that commands a mention on these pages. Had the excommunicated not occurred there may not have been a BAPS today. There was definite official excommunication - refer to the Raymond Williams as neutral reference. Its been added on a few times and mysteriously disappears some time later - I wonder if someone is trying to hide facts. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Shastriji

It is all about WP:NPOV, I completely agree. However, every fact or statement on Wikipedia needs to be directly supported by preferablly a 3rd party source. By verification, I meant that I wanted a citation directly citing that BAPS was excommunicated. BAPS (or BSS) was created due to a dispute over the Akshar Purushottam Upasana. Certain people wanted the group excommunicated, but I wanted verification that it happened on an official basis.^The World 15:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we both will accept Raymond Williams as a 3rd party reliable source - his book states Sadhus who went on to form BAPS were excommunicated - and it was definetly official (in fact there was a court order restraining BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples or even entering them, this would not have been possible without excommunication). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor (from the edits, I'm unsure of the exact stance of the editor) from the edit summary appears to see the addition as controversial. I guess we just need to wait for the editor to actually discuss the topic.^The World 17:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because something is controversial we do not need to keep it out - all we need to do is remain NPOV. As you said, if anyone has any objections they should raise them here. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the separation is that Shastri Yagnapurushdas left the Vadtal (older) sanstha, to form a new one because he had philosophical differences about the interpretation of Swaminarayan's teachings and how they should be presented in the temples. It is after his leaving, that there was a legal case filed, as a part of which the older sanstha had to 'excommunicate' him to make their case. User:Around the globe and User:World, do you think we should add this information here? Currently it looks as if he was simply ejected from the older temple, which doesnt seem true, from my studies. wildT (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would be a good idea to expand it - gives a better view of what happened. Just a small correction there - excommunication was announced by the Acharya and then the legal case filed to stop BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples (they were restrained from doing so by the court order). The excommunication was essential to stop them from preaching at Sampraday temples - although they left Vadtal, they continued to go to smaller Sampraday temples in villages and preach there - which was stopped by the court. Any other views? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Trying to search for a reference for this. Any good source other than Raymond Williams' book? wildT (talk) 15:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Off hand I can only think of Bochasan Bandh, a Vadtal Mandir publication written by the Swami who fought and won the case restraining BAPS sadhus from preaching at Sampraday temples (and at that time got BSS changed to BAPS dropping Swaminarayan, which was later overruled by the Supreme Court on right to religion grounds). However, that is POV and as such I would not like to use that as a ref. The Williams books are the most indepth neutral resource presently avaialable. There may be others, not had a check. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 06:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - would be interesting to read the Bochasan Bandh, but I guess that'll have to wait until after my exams. Will scout around for Williams' book - I thought I had a copy but couldnt find it yesterday. wildT (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Excommunication

Dr. Raymond Williams (the source used to support the idea that Shastri Yagnapurush was excommunicated) in his book A New Face of Hinduism states that a lower court found that Sadhu Yagnapurushdas and others were excommunicated (Pg. 57). However, Dr. Williams continues that the higher court overturned that decision. In fact, the higher court stated, "The laws of natural justice have clearly been broken in these proceedings [of 1906] and I have no hesitation in holding that as far as the law courts are concerned they would not recognize the excommunication of defendant No. [Yagnapurushdas] and would not deprive him of his rights to property on the grounds of that excommunication" The higher court, which takes precedence, relied on Sadhu Yagnapurushdas' affidavit to declare that the BAPS sadhus did not have a right to stay on Vadtal properties since they had "seceded", not excommunicated. Secede is defined in Merriam Webster as "to withdraw from an organization". Therefore,the legal conclusion, as stated by Dr. Williams, is that Sadhu Yagnapurushdas and the others left Vadtal Gadi - not excommunicated. ^The World 02:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• Good point, strong reference. Then I think we should change the excommunication reference to a secession one. As a regular contributor, should also get Around The Globe's views. What do you say, Globe? I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of Williams book but it seems World beat me to it. wildT (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the legal conclusion of that case. There was thereafter a case that went againt BAPS which uplheld the post-hoc excommunication. Give me some time, I will get the exact ref. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 07:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Off hand, Im posting something from an archive discussion on Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday on a similar topic by user Haribhagat in 2007:

Hi Sfacets, yes i have a source, by the name of Raymond Brady Williams who wrote 'An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism' - (http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Swaminarayan-Hinduism-Religion/dp/052165422X/sr=8-1/qid=1167676559/ref=sr_1_1/002-8895366-1552051?ie=UTF8&s=books)

I will paste a chunk from the book, chapter 2 - Growth, administration and schism (page 54).

"The split came when Swami Yagnapurush (AD 1865-1951), commonly called Shastri Maharaj , left Vadtal temple in 1906 and was expelled from the fellowship from the hastily called meeting of the sadhus. He left to establish his own group with a few ascetics and a small number of householders who supported him".

There are also other sections in this book which are commentries on past court cases between BAPS and Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The jist of it is BAPS saints go to preach at Swaminarayan Sampradaya temples and the Acharya files a case. He wins as he proves that BAPS have been ex-communicated and do not give allegiance to vadtal therefore they have no right to enter premises which belong to Swaminarayan Sampradaya.(page 57-58) (Appeal no.165 of 1940 in the court of the disctrict judge, kaira, at nadiad from decree in reg. civil suit no. 519 of 1936 of the court of the sub-judge Mr. P. B. Patel of borsad). The Judgement was given by District Judge, Mr. J.D. Kapadiya, who delivered his judgement on 29 November 1943.

Even BAPS devotees will admit that, Yagnapurush(Founder of BAPS) split from the Swaminarayan Sampradaya to set up BAPS. Granted he left of his own will but a meeting by the sect officials later reported that he had been officially excommunicated by the sect and any of his activities are to be considered to be the same, again BAPS devotees will not dispute this either.

Haribhagat 15:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Around The Globe

To equate this in very crude terms to a person, if a person resigns of his own accord from a company, and then later the company decide to terminate his services - it is seen as a resignation and not a termination (firing) - although both could be held as legal by a court. Similarly, I think we need to look at this objectively and recognize that Sadhu Yagnapurush 'resigned' first, and then his membership was 'terminated' - hence, for wikipedia purposes, we need to consider it as a resignation (split) and not a termination (firing). Considering the chronology of what happened, I feel that considering this as excommunication - though not legally incorrect - might not be NPOV. wildT (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the court upheld that they were expelled and hence cannot enter Sampraday mandirs. The other contention was that since they have been expelled their property becomes Sampraday property. That was declined - and the judge said he cannot uphold the excommunication to deny BSS right to property. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Section Addition

I agree with earlier discussion from 2007 that the page needs some restructuring. It is also missing a great deal of information and consists mainly of laundry list sections in its current state. As temples are the primary operating unit of the organization, I have done some research and am adding a new section on mandirs and their activities. Anastomoses (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Going along with my statement from earlier this month, I think the "Major relief activities handled by BAPS Charities," which is currently a big laundry list of relief activities, needs some improvement. I have researched the activities and background a bit more and am updating this section. Anastomoses (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New section

I added a much needed controversy section for specific incidents in the past that the public need be aware of. Vadtal sex scandals links and aacharya fund abuse also need to be posted. There have been reports of many changes to scriptures will be researched and updated such as with the aarti that seems like a over sensitive BAPS cult member keeps reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.232.53 (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits

It appears that a user or users from the Detroit area who has been vandalizing Jay Sadguru Swami and other pages is now vandalizing this page as well. He/she is using various anonymous IP addresses from Wayne State U and the surrounding area as well as the username Swamifraud to repeatedly sabotage this page and others to reflect his/her inherent biases against all things BAPS. This includes making up a "controversy section" and citing a unreliable, unverifiable public forum as a source to support libel as in above post (WP:Verifiability). I again appeal for constructive dialogue and cooperation to present substantiated material in a neutral point of view. Please review Wikipedia NPOV policies (WP:NPOV) and stop vandalizing. Anastomoses (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Please note that user 141.217.232.53 is now deleting talk page posts. Anastomoses (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Anastomoses (talk)

Anastomoses is deleting talk page posts and reverting changes to articles within seconds of updating them with facts. He is stalking the article and is clearly a biased member of this cult. Please address this lunatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.232.53 (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Anastomoses has been a very good contributor to the BAPS article with a very well-researched section added on BAPS Charities, as well as several other topics. Anastomoses's actions do not appear to me to be those of a "lunatic". In fact, I think they have done much to improve this encyclopedia, and it would be good for the broader effort to see their good work continue. I also don't think there is anything wrong in including a controversy section per se to this article, but I do agree with Anastomoses that the one cited source used by the anonymous editor does not meet the standards of Verifiability, which should, I feel be particularly adhered to in any sort of controversial issue. I am also concerned about the practice of anonymous edits and reverts, particularly of such a tendentious nature. I think it would be better if registered users weighed in on this issue, various view points were discussed with civility, and some consensus was developed about this disagreement before potentially questionably sourced material is included in the encyclopedia. In the meantime, I would suggest that the new section is temporary removed for a week or so, to allow registered editors to discuss it and arrive to some consensus that meets wikipedia standards. Anastomoses has raised a number of issues in his/her above post and I would welcome editors to counter/support that to help us all understand the issue better. I am not interested in getting into an edit war, but I am interested in improving this article and other articles on wikipedia, and I think the approach I suggest has been proven time and again to be a good way of doing that. Sacredsea (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand and have had added another source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.232.53 (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this source is slightly better than the public forum, so I am removing the public forum (unverifiable source) from the references. I would be happy to see some editorial consensus on this, and would propose that people weigh in within a week or ten days with their thoughts as that would be much preferable to a two-person edit war type of scenario on this or related pages. Thanks. Sacredsea (talk) 13:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I appreciate your input. There are and have been documented turf wars in India that have resulted in violence and these needs to be acknowledged, especially for a large cult like baps whose followers constantly covers up any factual criticisms directed towards them.

Just remember what goethean said earlier. "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

Anastomoses is a biased member and needs a reality check. He has gotten into two close edit wars with my colleague and I over baps activity in the sect. My team and I are researching all aspects and will be updating the articles regularly and making sure that sensitive members are not changing facts. Cult members are usually defensive when it comes to defending their image. Again to reiterate to any cult members here, I have no personal bias towards baps or swaminaryan. Just because I am pointing out facts that are overlooked by research and covered up by baps/gadi members. Most people do not know that baps has changed multiple scriptures and there is documented evidence and it will be updated.

For example: Anastomoses is so confused and biased that when I tried to add the FACT that baps changed the jay sadguru aarti, he reverted the article 10 times until finally he was forced to leave that FACT. Why does this cult member not want this FACT available? He did not want the public to know that a important song to the cult has been changed? Why is that? I have noticed that as pramukh approaches his death, sensitive followers need to keep up the defending moves. This no way means that baps is bad or wrong but cult members seem to have a personal biased to even mentioning that baps changes words to fit their ideology.

I am traveling to Rajkot, India and Siem Reap Province in Cambodia next month and have a scheduled appointment with the Mahant of that temple to go over the original Swamini Vato. BAPS has changed words in that book and I have enough evidence to make the claim that baps fundamentally has to change scriptures to make them fit their ideology. I have posted sent the link for the Aarti changes, Swamini Vato preliminary copies to researchers currently studying swaminaryan cults. I find it interesting that when my collogues post the sex scandals and funds misappropriations by the acharya's in the original cult, the members there seem to get sour because of their beliefs. This seems maybe an interesting fact to forward news outlets in Chino Hill as well.

One important thing to note here is that baps ideology mainly comes from oral tradition. None of the three major scriptures in the sect mention gunatitanda as akshar. Not in the vachanamrut, not in the shikshapatri and not in the satsangi jeevan. The problem that baps has faced is that they have a very difficult time making the public ignore the thousands of commands by swaminaryan to follow the aacharyas. This unfortunately has led baps to make 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.

For Example: baps publishes a book called Gems from Shikshapatri. According to a independent interview with a cult member, this version of the shikshapatri is distributed in the cult to all the children and is explained to them that theses selected gems are the most important verses of the shikshapatri. Conveniently all the verses mention Lord Krishna as supreme Lord or mentioning anything about the Nar-Narayan/Laxmi-Narayan gadis including the role of the aacharyas is left out. This manipulation has to be noted at least on wiki so that people understand the extreme measures any cult takes to keep themselves going.

Cult members: Please note that Swamini Vato and Gunatitanda articles will be updated soon. I hope to see some support from editors who understand these updates. As all writers of wiki should, evidence will be included. Anyone who cannot handle facts will be reported and blocked. Thank You 141.217.173.213 (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for joining discussion everyone. Users 141.217.173.213/141.217.232.53, I completely agree with you that all pages should have positives and negatives of all organizations on Wikipedia. As this is meant to be an encyclopedia and not a conspiracy forum, rules have been made to prevent false accusations. Please note that a strong personal belief does not count as a fact. Please also note that I stated specific reasons from wikipedia's policies to prevent such libel in my reversions on this page and the other pages that you mentioned. I am interested in maintaing and improving the quality of all Swaminarayan and Vaishnavism related articles, however you may perceive my defensive edits as one sided because you have only been contributing your insights to a handful of articles and posting items specifically targeting BAPS (hence my accusation of your bias on your talk page earlier, sorry if it was offensive). As my record will show, I have performed such defensive edits and helped improve all Swaminarayan articles. Nevertheless, I am glad we are all cooperating now and hope to see your stated noble intentions shine through. Anastomoses (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point taken Anastomoses. Our point is to state facts for everyone to see. If people keep hiding facts and making factual edits disappear like someone did on the aarti article then there is really no point of having a Wikipedia. As far as your opinion on strong personal beliefs not counting as a facts, if there is a source, and something that has really occurred or is actually the case, I don't see any libel. You are a good devout follower, you really seem to know your role and I forward look for your grammatical edits in the future. 141.217.232.53 (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Sacredsea’s assessment that a community consensus is the best way to improve this article rather than an edit war. Having said that, I think both users should look at WP:NPOV and use it as a guide when they try to make any edits. 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. Furthermore, stating opinions or contested assertions as fact does little to improve this article while threatening to report “anyone who cannot handle facts” undermines other editors and any good faith edits they make. Community discussion, dialogue and adhering to Wikipedia’s policies is the best way to move forward. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Ronneywayne17

Good Points Ronneywayne17. I reviewed WP:NPOV and that was a good read and good point. The only advantage of original research is that I can validate and then verify. Publishing that information at this stage for our personal research is not a feasible option but we are working with a researcher who has requested some field studies and we send information as we get it. Keep in mind that good faith edits are acceptable until you have people reversing any factual criticism because of their personal biased. Community consensus at times also has it's disadvantages because large organizations tend to have a media department/brainwashed followers who constantly change any criticism and spin what they perceive a negative as we have seen throughout news reports on Wikipedia about vandalized edits and that's why majority of academic establishments reject Wikipedia as a credible source. 141.217.173.219 (talk) 20:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It’s good to see that everyone interested in this page is attentive to the Wikipedia norms that govern here, particularly the core policies of No Original Research and NPOV. I agree with User:Rooneywayne17 that community dialogue among interested Wikipedia editors is the appropriate approach, particularly for subject matter such as the one at hand (see http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus for why).

Especially when it comes to controversial and debatable content, it is important for Wikipedia articles to be both accurate and balanced (see WP:NOV, which includes WP:UNDUE). I think that both of these considerations weigh against including the “Controversy” section that the anonymous Detroit-area user(s) has advocated. 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. As WP:Undue makes clear, even if discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject is verifiable and impartial (which itself is uncertain in the issue at hand), such discussion may still be disproportionate to its overall significance to the article topic, and therefore undue. WP:TE is particularly instructive here, as it bars giving undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. I think the issue here is generally analogous to the example given here, within WP:TE. Similarly, a separate section in an article, entitled “Controversy” and which only includes limited information about a single disputed incident, would unacceptably give undue weight to that dispute. HinduPundit (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I added two more links as evidence. Based on edits of HinduPundit, she may be a member of the sect with biased intentions. 141.217.232.53 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with the source http://wwrn.org/articles/24500/  ? Could you explain? 141.217.173.211 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source has to meet certain standards, including that the source is objective, has sufficient fact-checking, and sufficient experience and reputation in those regards. The sites you added do not meet those standards. For example, at the bottom of the wwrn page, it says: "Disclaimer: WWRN does not endorse or adhere to views or opinions expressed in the articles posted. This is purely an information site, to inform interested parties of religious trends." In other words, anyone can post their opinion. The site is more like a blog than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I see. I would have appreciated some effort to find the original article rather than just remove links. The article is original and I have contacted the source to get the archived version from the paper so that will no longer be a problem. I added addition sources as well for more conflicts as well. http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/latest-news/swaminarayan-subsect-cancels-procession-security-up-in-gadhada-/220866/ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/group-clash-breaks-out-in-amreli-10-hurt/962315/ 141.217.173.211 (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The new sources you added are reliable enough, but they do not support the assertions you are making. I am going to revert you again, and please stop editing the article until you obtain a consensus here that your edits are appropriate. Wikipedia doesn't permit this kind of battle in the article just because you believe you've fixed something. WP:BRD requires you to keep the discussion on the talk page until a consensus is reached. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m glad that there has been a broader discussion on the issues raised here. I think HinduPundit, Rooneywayne17, and Bbb23 have expressed some very important points, but before engaging with them, I would like to point out a number of other important issues.

As I’ve mentioned earlier, I feel that charges of bias and disruptive editing made by 141.217.173.219/141.217.173.213/141.217.232.53 (to be referred to as the anonymous Detroit area user(s)) against other editors should be properly checked out, and if warranted, the offending editors should be warned and potentially blocked if they persist in disruptive editing.

I checked out the Jay Sadguru Swami page on which anonymous Detroit-area user had asserted Anastomoses was repeatedly reverting factual changes due to bias.

I found that starting from 2013 March 26, anonymous Detroit-area user began to add an unverified sentence to the article which was quickly reverted by a number of users, including initially Jackson Peebles, and then, Anastomoses and others. Jackson Peebles and Anastomoses were justified in their reversions since the sentence was not in line with WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Moreover, Artic Kangaroo was justified in his/her revision since he/she corrected changes that were misrepresenting a verifiable source (1st change) and privileged a source of lesser verifiability (2nd change). Anastomoses explained as much on the talk page under Anonymous Edits. Yet, anonymous Detroit-area user(s) continued to engage in non-constructive edit warring. Based on comments in the talk page here above, Anonymous Detroit-area user(s) believed the sentence was factual and therefore, it should not be removed. However, Wikipedia is clear that editors are justified in removing anything not in line with Wikipedia policies of no original research and verifiability. Finally, as a result of anonymous Detroit-area user’s disruptive edits, Materialscientistsappears to have blocked one of Detroit-area user's IP addresses and semi-protected the page.

A similar situation has occurred in the Gunatitanand Swami article, where I first reverted a sentence added by anonymous Detroit-area user which did not satisfy WP:V, since it misrepresented a reliable source. Again 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit area user(s)) ignored the civil explanation of Wikipedia policies by Anastomoses on the talk page, and continued to engage in non-constructive editing.

A similar scenario of non-constructive editing by 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit area user(s)) has occurred on this page, which is apparent.

In addition to not satisfying WP:V, 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user's) talk posts on all three of these articles are not satisfying Wikipedia:Civility. Civility is part of Wikipedia’s code of conduct and of one of Wikipedia’s five pillars. Incivility is not acceptable in any Wikipedia forum. This includes insults, name-calling, personal attacks, taunting and baiting, and lying. In the talk pages of the three articles mentioned above, 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user) has disregarded Wikipedia’s policy of no personal attacks against Anastomoses and HinduPundit. 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user) also uses the pejoratives, “cult” and “brainwashed followers”, to refer to a religious group and its purported members. I would also consider this a personal attack and contrary to WP:Civility. This sort of approach tends to drive away productive contributors and does not help the long-term goal of making a better encyclopedia.

Judging from the talk page posts above, it appears that 141.217.173.221's (anonymous Detroit-area user's) stated intention is to use Wikipedia to pursue a particular point of view (opposing a particular religious group - see unsubstantiated comments on texts & theology among others), but it should be noted that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia (WP:NOTFORUM), and thus 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user)’s actions in that regard are inappropriate.

Based on this evidence, it is appears that contrary to 141.217.173.221’s (anonymous Detroit-area user’s) assertions, Anastomoses has not engaged in disruptive editing. However, all the evidence presented here points to the fact that 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user) is engaged in disruptive editing (WP:TE). Anastomoses, HinduPundit, and Rooneywayne17 had mentioned some of these points, but I wanted to check to make sure since I feel that charges of disruptive editing are serious.

After it has been explained by a number of editors, I would hope that the anonymous Detroit-area user ceases from engaging in disruptive editing practices and adopts a more collaborative, civil approach wedded to Wikipedia policies, so that they may become a valued contributor.

Moreover, I agree with HinduPundit’s assessment that the point that 141.217.173.221 (anonymous Detroit-area user) has cited under controversy here appears questionable due to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. I also feel that Bbb23’s comments are exactly right. I think it would be useful if others also weighed in with their thoughts and arguments.Sacredsea (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am a little confused in terms of what the problem is. All the references have been checked out. The controversy section of this article states that "BAPS sahdus were involved in violence in 2009 in India with the Vadtal sect over turf. Conflicts have occurred in the past, but this was the first time BAPS had been involved in violence." Is this not true? Are these references incorrect?

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/1084727/report-rival-swaminarayan-sadhus-war-on-streets http://expressindia.indianexpress.com/latest-news/swaminarayan-subsect-cancels-procession-security-up-in-gadhada-/220866/ http://www.indianexpress.com/news/group-clash-breaks-out-in-amreli-10-hurt/962315/

We have made these edits based on what goethean said earlier. "Wikipedia documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations ...These organizations neither have authority over Wikipedia's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Wikipedia presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Wikipedia to be censored and would virtually be the end of Wikipedia. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own wiki."

I have a feeling that I am being targeted by members who wish to sweep this under the mat and ignore the references? It's simply presenting a fact that turf wars occurred in the past.

141.217.233.109 (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, I found out the Anon Detroit-area users are also engaged in disruptive editing on Swaminarayan-related articles - also pointed out by other editors. Their behaviour makes it harder for other editors to work with them - from Bbb23 to Omnipaedista. Instead of engaging with the editors in the talk pages, they indulge in edit warring and reverting pages (See User_talk:141.217.203.131 and User_talk:141.217.233.69). They neither, provide any edit summaries for any of their edits or reverts, nor do they register - inspite of the editors' suggestions (although, that is their prerogative). Their neglect of Wikipedia policies and editors' suggestions amply support their lack of cooperation with editors who are working in this space. The hallmark of Wikipedia lies in its colloborative spirit.

Also, I observed these Detroit-area users making multiple personal/ad hominem attacks to a particular group and to several of the editors. This was pointed out in clear terms by Sacredsea and they were asked to desist based on Wikipedia policies (WP:PERSONAL). Yet their personal attacks continued. Their focus clearly seems to not be concerned with content creation and improvement but with attacking editors and pushing a non-neutral point of view. Based on their cumulative edits and attacks, it seems they are targeting a particular group, which raises doubts about whether they are making edits under good-faith. I hope they cease from such activities. I look forward to their cooperation with all the editors. Thanks! Kapil.xerox (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)