Revision as of 03:35, 25 April 2013 edit141.217.232.53 (talk) →Anastomoses (talk): new section← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:47, 12 December 2024 edit undoRam112313 (talk | contribs)183 edits →Explain: ReplyTag: Reply |
(518 intermediate revisions by 87 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|class=start|importance=high|vaishnavism=yes|krishna=yes|swaminarayan=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{Not a forum}} |
|
{{WPReligion|class=Start|importance=Low|NRM=yes|NRMImp=Mid}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Indian English}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject India|importance=mid|gujarat=yes|gujarat-importance=high}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=mid|swaminarayan=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Organizations|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Religion|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(60d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 5 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Removal of duplicated info== |
|
==Pramukh Swami== |
|
|
Added Pramukh Swami Maharaj name in introduction paragraph, as he is identified with this faith today. ] (]) 07:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This edit summary claims to be removing duplicated info . However what the edit did was remove any mention of vegetarianism from the article. This was not removal of duplicated info, if was removal of any information about vegetarianism. This may have been a mistake so I will assume good faith but we need to be more careful. If I had not have noticed this then this is total elimination of any mention of vegetarianism from the article. Vegetarianism is an important BAPS teaching. I have added just one line back to the article about this. ] (]) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
==Disputed== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:], thank you for ], I appreciate that and I want to clarify that my intention wasn't to remove all information about vegetarianism from the article. I genuinely felt that there was ''similarly'' worded info already mentioned under the Ekantik dharma section, specifically the sentence {{color|green|The ideals of dharma range from practicing non-violence to avoiding meat, onions, garlic, and other items in their diet}}. So the sentences in the vegetarianism section, {{color|green|BAPS advocates the principle of ahimsa (non-violence) and practices vegetarianism. BAPS members are strict lacto-vegetarians that also do not consume onion and garlic as they are believed to have tamasic properties}} just felt redundant. |
|
I have added some infomation regarding the background it should stay here because its all facts and relevent links to this sect. |
|
|
|
:Moreover, there was also an issue with ] and ] with the last two sentences in that section which said {{color|green|They only eat food cooked by their own members. To help with this BAPs have food courts serving vegetarian food at its mandirs}}. The cited source doesn't make these claims. |
|
|
:I saw the sentence that you added back in, and I still feel that it's redundant for the reason given above. However, I think if we combine the sentence you added with the existing sentence then it would explicitly use the terms ahimsa and vegetarianism. This would also add clarity to the point without unnecessarily restating it. I've went ahead and made the change and the new sentence reads: ''The ideals of dharma range from devotees following the principle of ahimsa (non-violence), practicing lacto-vegetarianism, avoiding onions, garlic, and other items in their diet''. What do you think? ] (]) 02:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hi that's alright. From my own understanding the idea that they only eat cooked food by their own members is obsolete, I don't think that is true any longer and it's hard to find any recent info on that. I agree we should remove baps own website, it is an unreliable source, we should cite secondary sources. From some of the academic books I found which give a brief overview they are strict lacto-vegetarian. I agree with merging the content, it only needs to be in one place. I see you have done that, I support your edits. Thanks. ] (]) 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh great! Thank you. And can definitely relate that information is hard to find sometimes. I've noticed this while trying to find info on various temple articles that there's not many secondary sources. For that reason, I was under the impression that primary sources can be used (as I did see some cited on those articles), because primary sources aren't by default unreliable per ]. So I would think we can use them to cite basic info as long as we use ]. But agreed, secondary sources are always preferred. ] (]) 23:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Allegations in the Lead Section and Source Reliability == |
|
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. --] 22:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The current lead section overemphasizes political allegations in a way that deviates from Misplaced Pages's core principles. The lead should provide a balanced overview rather than highlight disputed claims. Currently, the section relies heavily on New York Times reporting, which, while generally reliable, represents a particular editorial perspective. I suggest moving these allegations to a dedicated section like "Controversies" or "Media coverage" where they can be explored with proper context and balanced sourcing. This would allow the lead to focus on essential, well-established facts about the subject. |
|
: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, ]. -] 02:09, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expanding the range of reliable sources would strengthen the article's neutrality. While the NYT is a respected publication, incorporating diverse perspectives from other established outlets would give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. These changes would better align with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on lead sections (WP:LEAD) and reliable sources (WP:RS), while maintaining the article's informative value. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In this case I have to agree. ] - ] 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This comment is completely generated using AI and is full of ]. Please write your views in your own words in order to explain how the content is not neutral. - ] (]) 04:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I don't know about AI (I don't need it; it uses info ''I'' have written at Misplaced Pages), but one sentence, without context or explanation, in the lead, without a corresponding sentence in the body, is not in line with ]. ] - ] 05:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's now in body. - ] (]) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::If it's in the body why should a singular sentence be on the lead section? It doesn't make sense since, even in the article additions you created, it barely mentions being tied to BJP. ] (]) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Because lead is a summary of the body. - ] (]) 08:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Please explain how so? You cannot use AI websites like GPTZero like you previously mentioned to say I used AI. I didn't use AI. I simply used grammarly as my singular writing tool to edit. ] (]) 05:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Grammarly itself uses LLM now to "correct" the prose. - ] (]) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I think I'm getting your point about AI... ] - ] 05:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Is this even relevant to the talk about having a singular allegation on the lead section of an article? Isn't it better to have it under a subsection or the current section? ] (]) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The content is mentioned in the body, therefore the inclusion in lead is warranted given how it is widely mentioned. - ] (]) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It's widely mentioned on articles regarding the opening of Akshardham USA. None of the articles are directly created to talk about how BAPS is actually linked to the BJP. They are also allegations as seen within the articles with little to no evidence or context provided. It seems widely NPOV to have a singular sentence about the organization's alleged link to the BJP in the lead section without much information. ] (]) 08:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::All the sources are discussing BAPS in this context not the temple, do not misrepresent them. What you are trying to do is ] - ] (]) 08:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::What you just said is incorrect as 3/4 articles linked in the lead section are about the lawsuit regarding Swaminarayan Akshardham in which it is mentioned that baps is allegedly linked to the BJP. It's also NPOV to mention it in the lead despite little to no relevance in the overall article. ] (]) 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::This response is self contradictory, you agree that BAPS has been linked to BJP by the sources then you deny that it has any relevance to this article which is about BAPS! - ] (]) 08:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::No you misunderstand. I am saying it is not maintaining a neutral point of view by mentioning a single out of place line in the lead section of the article. If news media has alleged that BAPS is linked to the BJP then it is sufficiently mentioned in the body with the edits you have made. There is no reason to have a single out of place line in the lead section. ] (]) 08:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::The statement is neutrally worded, mentioned in the body with sufficient number of sources therefore ] in the lead. - ] (]) 08:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::As stated "Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.". Having a single sentence about allegations to BAPS hardly warrants it being part of the lead section. Especially if it has already been barely mentioned in the body. ] (]) 08:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::It also seems inconsistent, especially when considering past BAPS events like the inauguration of Akshardham in New Delhi, where prominent figures such as APJ Abdul Kalam, the former President of India, and LK Advani, a senior political leader, were invited. Neither was directly associated with the BJP at the time. BAPS has historically extended invitations to individuals across diverse political affiliations, emphasizing unity, cultural celebration, and the significance of the occasion rather than partisan considerations. APJ Abdul Kalam had also written a book on Pramukh Swami. Considering these things it seems NPOV to just say that BAPS is alleged to have a strong connection with the BJP in the lead section. ] (]) 08:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::No it uses natural language processing and machine learning to correct prose. At most it's a gratified grammar corrector. Grammarly AI is using LLM's there's a difference. Anyways the point is the how you are creating an imbalance in the article by putting one section in the lead without anything else to support it. ] (]) 08:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
==Explain== |
|
|
{{Ping|Ram112313}} - Can you explain your edits? appears to be . was entirely misleading , there is a public perception linking ''sect'' to the violence which is what the article states, you cannot remove that statement by saying pramukh Swami has nothing do with violence when she wasn't even talking about him!- ] (]) 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The article YOU referenced states multiple times how Pramukh Swami did not condone the violence and Pramukh Swami (the guru of the sect) being linked to the BJP is flimsy. |
|
::Changed. --] <big>ॐ</big> 7 July 2005 21:07 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:"The sect has conspicuously avoided making any statements about Gujarat that would implicate the party in power. Pramukh Swami has publicly condemned the violence and urged peace and reconciliation. Devotees were urged to aid anyone in distress; prayers for all the victims were offered; an interfaith memorial ceremony was held, including Muslim and Christian leaders, on the premises of the temple complex in Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat. Celebration of an important festival was canceled in order to offer prayers for the victims at 9,000 BAPS centers around the world. Pramukh Swami met with local political and social leaders to discuss how to avoid future violence. 37 Nonetheless, the sect did not condemn the actions of police and government. Its evenhanded deploring of the plight of “victims” is all too evenhanded. Many small and relatively powerless NGOs also remained publicly neutral. The admirable Self-Employed Women’s Organization incurred widespread criticism for its failure to denounce Modi and for its leadership’s continued willingness to work with him. This choice, however, can be explained by the extreme vulnerability of the organization and its members, who would be at risk of violence had their leadership condemned the violence. It is not clear that the neutrality of BAPS can be similarly justified, given its enormous wealth and social influence" |
|
|
:Another excerpt: |
|
|
:The public perception that links Pramukh Swami with communal tensions has a flimsy basis. On the other hand, the high visibility of leading BJP politicians’ connections with the sect—both L. K. Advani and Narendra Modi appear as prominent guests at the sect’s public events, and members of the group play a prominent role in BJP fundraising—continues to arouse concern among people eager to stop communal violence. 34 Swaminarayan sadhus say that they are a purely religious organization and have no political views: the only link with BJP politicians is that “we are Hindus and they are Hindus, so we are linked together.”35 Politicians come to the festivals because they want Pramukh Swami’s blessing. Interviewed in 1999 by scholar Raymond Brady Williams, Pramukh Swami stated:“We don’t have any political ties with them but only relations with respect to religion and spirituality." |
|
|
:"Other, closer connections to the Hindu right are widely suspected but difficult to find." ] (]) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::You should stop nitpicking. What Pramukh Swami says or if he has a connection to is irrelevant when the sect itself has been connected to the violence and BJP. I never added anything about the guru anyway it is about the sect. - ] (]) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Also, the fact that Pramukh Swami connection is "irrelevant" seems wrong considering he was the previous head of the sect and was the main guru during the global expansion period of it. He is also mentioned heavily in the article and the source for the two differing arguments whether the sect is linked to the BJP. Having the edited paragraph gives a more neutral view which talks about the source more clearly. ] (]) 01:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::You should follow what the source states and it is clear about public perception of sect's connection to BJP and violence. - ] (]) 01:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:There is no nitpicking. The overall argument in the source is about how there might be a link to the BJP, but the sect itself has maintained neutrality and finding a link between the BJP and BAPS is hard and flimsy. What you are doing is pushing a non-neutral point of view by skewing the overall source and the details within it. ] (]) 01:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sources has mentioned the "public perception" of BAPS's connection to BJP/violence, you cannot arbitrarily remove it and put AI generated hallucination in its place. - ] (]) 01:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There is no AI generated hallucination. GPTZero is not even accurate. I also did mention of how the author of the source mentions there might be a public perception of a connection to the BJP, but a hard link cannot be found and the basis of it is flimsy. That last part is extremely important in the context of the article. You cannot just not include that portion. ] (]) 01:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::my edit talks about the public perception along with the other contextual information from the source. |
|
|
:::"Martha C. Nussbaum has noted "a perception of a close link between the Swaminarayan sect and right-wing Gujarati politics," citing the attendance of prominent BJP politicians, such as L.K. Advani and Narendra Modi, at the sect's events and the involvement of some members in fundraising activities linked to the BJP. However, she also highlights that these connections appear to be limited to religious and cultural overlaps rather than direct political affiliation. The sect's leadership has consistently emphasized its focus on spirituality and religion, distancing itself from any formal political ties, and statements from Pramukh Swami Maharaj have clarified that their relationship with political figures is based on shared religious identity rather than political collaboration." ] (]) 01:34, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Why have you removed the connection to Gujarat violence? The sources is clear about it. - ] (]) 01:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"Devotees were urged to aid anyone in distress; prayers for all the victims were offered; an interfaith memorial ceremony was held, including Muslim and Christian leaders, on the premises of the temple complex in Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat. Celebration of an important festival was canceled in order to offer prayers for the victims at 9,000 BAPS centers around the world. Pramukh Swami met with local political and social leaders to discuss how to avoid future violence." |
|
|
:::::"On balance, it seems likely that the Swaminarayan sect is a rather passive force for peace, and that the Gujaratis who are both affiliates of the sect and supporters of Narendra Modi derive the values of communal division that animate Gujarati civil society from another source, not from any malign teaching by the sect." |
|
|
:::::Both of these portions discussing the connection to any communal violence state how it is NOT connected via the teachings of the sect rather from another source. It also mentions how the guru of BAPS, Pramukh Swami met to prevent future violence with local political and social leaders along with an interfaith meeting. ] (]) 01:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::So? This does not give clean chit to the sect of suspicions of connection to the violence. - ] (]) 01:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::When did I ever say that and where does the source say that the sect is linked to the violence? It mentions that there might be public perception to the sect being linked to the BJP but even that is flimsy. The sentence with the other sources that allege the link to the BJP has also already been in the article without changes. I think you are skewing the view of the article to push a non-neutral view. ] (]) 01:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::"Yet this devotional sect, known for its asceticism, reforming tendencies, and emphasis on nonviolence, is today widely suspected of having some connection with the violence in Gujarat. Over the years, in part because of the important role of the Patel clan in both temple and politics, there has come to be at least a perception of a close link between the Swaminarayan sect and right-wing Gujarati politics." - ] (]) 01:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::You are not even including the next part within the source: |
|
|
:::::::::"Given the complexity of Gujarati civil society, it is difficult to assess the validity of this perception. Certainly, the sect is admired and praised by state politicians of all stripes, at both national and state levels. It is thereore not surprising that the BJP, Gujarat’s leading party, would also praise it" ] (]) 01:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"The public perception that links Pramukh Swami with communal tensions has a flimsy basis". This is also mentioned soon after the paragraph you gave. ] (]) 01:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::I find myself repeating this again but the source talks about existence of public perception about connection to Gujarat violence. Sect's proclaimed 'neutrality' and whether Pramukh himself was connected to the violence is frankly not relevant here although it can be mentioned with due weightage. - ] (]) 01:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::But again, you are misinterpreting the source. The source claims how although the sect is proclaimed to be neutral and despite some suspicions about the sect being linked, there is no direct link or evidence for the sect to be part of the violence. As mentioned,: |
|
|
:::::::::::Given the complexity of Gujarati civil society, it is difficult to assess the validity of this perception. |
|
|
:::::::::::On balance, it seems likely that the Swaminarayan sect is a rather passive force for peace, and that the Gujaratis who are both affiliates of the sect and supporters of Narendra Modi derive the values of communal division that animate Gujarati civil society from another source, not from any malign teaching by the sect. |
|
|
:::::::::::This context is needed. ] (]) 02:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The text explicitly denies any connection between the sect's teachings and violence. It attributes any violent acts to broader societal influences within Gujarat, not the sect's doctrine. |
|
|
:::::::"On balance, it seems likely that the Swaminarayan sect is a rather passive force for peace, and that the Gujaratis who are both affiliates of the sect and supporters of Narendra Modi derive the values of communal division that animate Gujarati civil society from another source, not from any malign teaching by the sect." ] (]) 01:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Public perception about BJP affiliation and connection to Gujarati violence exists and it should be mentioned not outright deleted based on sect's proclaimed 'neutrality'. We can mention some of the content you have quoted here. - ] (]) 01:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::If we did mention the public perception. It would have to include further context such as "Given the complexity of Gujarati civil society, it is difficult to assess the validity of this perception". You cannot just include certain parts and not include context from the source ] (]) 01:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I have added further context based on our conversation here. ] (]) 02:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You have introduced a blatant ]. - ] (]) 02:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This is the new prose that should replace the QUOTEFARM introduced by Ram112313. |
|
|
:{{Talkquote|Martha Nussbaum has noted that there exists "a perception of a close link between the Swaminarayan sect and right-wing Gujarati politics." She further asserts that BJP politicians such as L.K. Advani and Narendra Modi have appeared as prominent guests at its events and that members of the organisation have played a significant role in fundraising for the BJP, which has raised concerns among those who wished to put an end to the communal tensions. She also states that this sect is "widely suspected of having some connection with the violence in Gujarat".<ref name="Nussbaum">{{cite book | last=Nussbaum | first=Martha C. | title=The Clash Within: Democracy, Religious Violence, and India's Future | publisher=Harvard University Press | year=2007 | isbn=978-0-674-02482-3 | jstor=j.ctt13x0k4v | url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt13x0k4v | access-date=2024-12-11 | page=324-326}}</ref> However, Nussbaum has also stated that the public perception connecting Pramukh Swami to communal tensions has a " flimsy basis". The sadhus from the sect have denied adherence to any political views and statements from Pramukh Swami Maharaj assert that their relationship with political figures is based on shared religious identity rather than political collaboration. Nussbaum also notes the complexity of Gujarati civil society and difficulties in assessing the validity of the said public perception. She concludes by stating that the sect "is a rather passive force for peace" and attributes the communal values among the followers of the sect and the BJP to the communal division present in Gujarati civil society, rather than to any malign teachings by the sect.<ref name="Nussbaum"/> }} |
|
|
:{{Talkquote|Nussbaum also expresses concerns regarding the sect's practice of "isolating (and implicitly denigrating) women" and absolute veneration to the Pramukh Swami's words, which according to her "reinforces the devaluation of critical and independent thinking that is all too prominent in Gujarat." <ref name="Nussbaum"/>}} |
|
|
:{{Reflist}} |
|
|
:- ] (]) 02:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
: There is no reason for the last argument to be included in the Political section. It does not have anything to do with the sects link to politics "Nussbaum also expresses concerns regarding the sect's practice of "isolating (and implicitly denigrating) women" and absolute veneration to the Pramukh Swami's words, which according to her "reinforces the devaluation of critical and independent thinking that is all too prominent in Gujarat." |
|
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.<small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) 12:07, 28 October 2005.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:- ] (]) 02:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:The article doesn't accept the paper as fact. The article merely mentions that the paper exists. — ] ] 17:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: More information regarding this should be added as well: On balance, it seems likely that the Swaminarayan sect is a rather passive force for peace, and that the Gujaratis who are both affiliates of the sect and supporters of Narendra Modi derive the values of communal division that animate Gujarati civil society from another source, not from any malign teaching by the sect. |
|
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"? <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) 12:33, 28 October 2005.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
|
:- ] (]) 02:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::The subheading has been changed to "Reception" as it is more accurate given the content that will be introduced. - ] (]) 02:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:That's a ], 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 ], one does find a ]. — ] ] 17:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::If the heading is changed to Reception, it might need more detail as many different governments and organzations have also given their view towards the sect. Guess this leaves room for more additions to the article. ] (]) 02:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::We would also need to add how BAPS is seen from various different government and religious organizations. An example being opinions from the King of England and Dalai Llama, as reception is a broad term encompassing more than just political views. ] (]) 02:45, 12 December 2024 (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. |
|
|
|
:: I have updated the proposed text. If you have no issues I will introduce it per ]. Thanks. - ] (]) 02:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::It might be better to link She concludes by stating that the sect "is a rather passive force for peace" and attributes the communal values among the followers of the sect and the BJP to the communal division present in Gujarati civil society, rather than to any malign teachings by the sect" and "Nussbaum also expresses concerns regarding the sect's practice of "isolating (and implicitly denigrating) women" and absolute veneration to the Pramukh Swami's words, which according to her "reinforces the devaluation of critical and independent thinking that is all too prominent in Gujarat." together as even within the article the context is together in that aspect. Other than that, it seems good to change although we would need to have more information about the sect from other viewpoints for the "reception" section since that's a broad term. ] (]) 02:47, 12 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Please ]. From the , it looks like the link stopped working, and someone removed it. I will attempt to find bibliographic data for the paper. — ] ] 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 ] then you've already reviewed it before. We are we deleting it? -] 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. <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
::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. ] 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. <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> |
|
|
|
|
|
::''...the organization(BAPS) should have a say as to what is factual about thier own establishement and beliefs.'' |
|
|
:That's an ] idea. Misplaced Pages documents both positive and negative aspects of all organizations, including ], ], ] and ]s such as ]. These organizations neither have authority over Misplaced Pages's content, nor do they offer infallible documentation of their organization. Misplaced Pages presents BAPS's perspective on itself, but it also presents other perspectives on BAPS. Taking any other course would be to allow Misplaced Pages to be censored and would virtually be the end of Misplaced Pages. If you want an article that presents BAPS in only a favorable light, then start your own ]. — ] ] 15:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well that is certainly your opinion. Also I never said any organization has authority over a Misplaced Pages 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!-- --> |
|
|
|
|
|
*''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 ], even a whole category, ]. While it perhaps should also be mentioned in ], that doesn't mean it should be remoevd from here. -] 07:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== External links == |
|
|
|
|
|
Why are these websites: |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
constantly being removed without comment? Is there something objectionable about them? -] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. -] 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 Misplaced Pages 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!! ] 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 ] 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? |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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 ] ? --] 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. ] 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' ] 17:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*''moved to '' ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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 Misplaced Pages. I do hope everybody understands that. ] 15:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sorry but I don't wish to enter into a debate here on Misplaced Pages. 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, |
|
|
:] 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. |
|
|
] 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. ] 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.--] 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) ] 21:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Restructure == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose the following changes to this article in an attempt to restructure this article to Misplaced Pages standards. |
|
|
|
|
|
#Expand the Religion & Spiritual section to provide claims for existence - combine Title section; possible rename to Philosophy? |
|
|
#Create new article for BAPS Care International |
|
|
#Remove redundancies in terms of links |
|
|
|
|
|
Feedback? ] 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! ] 20:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: Yeah -- the article, and you, are hopelessly slanted. The opposing POV in 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 ] movement and all the slaughter that has implied, eg. the ] thing. ] 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 Misplaced Pages artcle! Just one of the articles on this peaceful response is . 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. ] 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==AKA BAPA== |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't keep putting this on. Its pointless. ] 15:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Orphaned references in ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
I check pages listed in ] to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for ] in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of ]'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. |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Reference named "UN":</b><ul> |
|
|
<li>From ]: {{cite web |url=http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20000911/iin11007.html |title=Pramukh Swami at the UN |accessdate=2008-01-15 |author= |last= |first= |date=2000-09-11 |publisher=] }}</li> |
|
|
<li>From ]: {{cite web |title=India and the United Nations |url=http://www.un.int/india/india_and_the_un_pkeeping.html |accessdate=2006-04-22}}</li> |
|
|
</ul> |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ]] 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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 ]dham), 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. |
|
|
--] (]) 00:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The ] 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 ] ]] 20:24, 24 February 2010 (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. ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Shastriji |
|
|
|
|
|
:It is all about ], I completely agree. However, every fact or statement on Misplaced Pages 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 ]. Certain people wanted the group excommunicated, but I wanted verification that it happened on an official basis.] ]] 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). <strong>]</strong>] 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.] ]] 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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. ] (]) 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? <strong>]</strong>] 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Trying to search for a reference for this. Any good source other than Raymond Williams' book? ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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. ] (]) 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 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. 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. ] ]] 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 ]</strong>'s views. What do you say, Globe? I have been trying to get my hands on a copy of Williams book but it seems ] beat me to it. ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 07:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Off hand, Im posting something from an archive discussion on ] 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) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] |
|
|
|
|
|
:: 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. ] (]) 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. <strong>]</strong>] 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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 (]). I again appeal for constructive dialogue and cooperation to present substantiated material in a neutral point of view. Please review Misplaced Pages NPOV policies (]) and stop vandalizing. ] (]) 01:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please note that user 141.217.232.53 is now deleting talk page posts. ] (]) 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. |
|
The current lead section overemphasizes political allegations in a way that deviates from Misplaced Pages's core principles. The lead should provide a balanced overview rather than highlight disputed claims. Currently, the section relies heavily on New York Times reporting, which, while generally reliable, represents a particular editorial perspective. I suggest moving these allegations to a dedicated section like "Controversies" or "Media coverage" where they can be explored with proper context and balanced sourcing. This would allow the lead to focus on essential, well-established facts about the subject.
Expanding the range of reliable sources would strengthen the article's neutrality. While the NYT is a respected publication, incorporating diverse perspectives from other established outlets would give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. These changes would better align with Misplaced Pages's guidelines on lead sections (WP:LEAD) and reliable sources (WP:RS), while maintaining the article's informative value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)