This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 15 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Criticism of Swaminarayan sect page were merged into Swaminarayan Sampradaya on 03-Nov-2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Swaminarayan Sampraday page were merged into Swaminarayan Sampradaya on 29 December 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
This is gross misconduct and usage of this talk page where things get blatantly disregarded. I have posted twice here for items to be discussed and not once has an individual commented on what I have had to say. This is simply shows that individuals "pick & choose" items to discuss and have blatant disregard for the more serious points of discussion.
Content such as the 'Gunatit Samaj' need to be wholly re-edited and structured in a way which is coherent and more importantly factual, currently the content written there is heavily biased & lacks basis as it does not correlate to the sources provided. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi
GunatitSamaj1966, the information regarding Gunatit Samaj is sourced primarily from Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) which are independent scholarly sources. While you claim that the articles does not correlate to the sources provided, I have checked the sources, and it appears that the article does correlate with the cited sources. Please see below the excerpts from the respective sources.
Melton 2020:
Williams 2001/2018:
To address your other point about why things are deleted without discussion, it appears there is a bot that automatically deletes inactive threads. I would assume that since your claims were not based in fact, no one took the time to reply, and the bot deleted the inactive thread. Finally, Wikipedia editors are volunteers who pick and choose what discussions engage in as per their interests or inclinations. That is not “gross misconduct” that is how Wikipedia is designed to work. So, there is no bias or gross misconduct as you are claiming, however please note that continuing to make such baseless claims and accusations may be viewed by other editors as WP:TE, and that might deter other editors from seriously engaging with your points. Apollo1203 ( talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The "scholarly" sources do not provide a view which is 'holisitic' thus are heavily biased. My claims are not "baseless" as you have stated this is simply how it is! Note that in the said section regarding the Gunatit Samaj there seems to be a form of scholastic prejudice due to the sources used to reference the content there. It woul GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It would seem fit to have sources which do not conform to this scholastic prejudice/bias to give a more holistic understanding of the Gunatit Samaj. Currently, this is not the case and alignment towards the views of BAPS is evident. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf" - where is this stated in the aforementioned texts? This is simply hearsay added by parties who have an "issue" with the said group! Unfortunately, I do not see the texts by Williams & Melton as being "valid" sources as there is no inclusion of the views of other parties i.e. the Gunatit Samaj in their texts, thus they have illustrated a one-sided view with complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj. As the content currently stands on Wikipedia it portrays immense bias & some form of prejudice thus is not "valid" in my opinion, the content should come from a wide range of sources as opposed to having only scholarly sources which are heavily influenced by opposing individuals. I do apologise if I have caused any inconvenience. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What I do suggest is to remove the entirety of the Gunatit Samaj from the page, the reason for this is that I will collate a number of "proper" sources which affirms views from each party involved with the Gunatit Samaj. If this is possible? GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
As you mention that Wikipedia requires sources which have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", if Wikipedia prides itself in allowing sources which are "fact-checked" and "accurate" then Wikipedia & it's policy makers should revise these policies as the sources provided here are not at all "fact-checked" nor "accurate" as there is some form 'scholarly bias'. At no point in any of the authored texts has there been "proper" fact-checking this negates the usage of the texts in the context of the Gunatit Samaj. The aforementioned texts authored by Melton & Williams have a complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj in its entirety as no party from the Gunatit Samaj had engaged in verifying the accuracy/validity of the text or to express & present their views on the matter. The matter concerning the Gunatit Samaj in relation to both texts had come from a heavily biased source thus is not valid to be presented here as a "fact-checked" and "accurate" source". As you mention if I do find independent, reliable, published sources that refute what Melton and Williams state and support my version then the editors should indeed publish the amended version. I am currently in process of doing this. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ragas1771 and GunatitSamaj1966. Just a FYI, The users above were engaging in meat/sock puppetry and were subsequently banned for POV pushing in favor of the Baps branch. It seems your concerns are consistent with that pro-BAPS pov pushing. Feel free to start a new fresh section and outline what's currently on the page and what is the accurate verbiage and post the sources that support the change and reach a consensus with any interested users. Kbhatt22 ( talk) 04:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
swaminarayan vadtal gadi Aacharya Named is Rakepshad ji mharaj 2008 in a Active.... It on this time 2022 and after to continuously... please check and changes.. 2405:204:858C:A77E:762D:BE7E:2C3D:8A54 ( talk) 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonathansammy: Hey!! I don't have access to the full source you cited in this section but the preview page that I could see uses the term "members" of the swaminarayan sect. Not sure if later it outlines the whole faith or specific branches partaking in attempts to ban castes. Based on these 3 sources: 1, 2, 3....It seems that The Baps branch and its founder were the one pursuing the caste based discrimination. Might make sense to outline that nuance in this section for clarity. Kbhatt22 ( talk) 04:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The lowest social groups, such as dalits and adivasis, did not join the sect in significant numbers. Makrand Mehta has shown in his article how untouchables were not permitted to enter Swaminarayan temples, though in one case a separate temple was constructed for them.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Firslty lord Swaminarayan is not avatar of Krishna, yet krishna is avatar of Swaminarayan, change this as soon as possible, do not pass any wrong message if you doesn't know.
His Pragtya is at 2 April, 1781 change this 192.75.211.200 ( talk) 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The BAPS did not file the case and did not partake in the case. I have shared various links to the court case in which it is shown that the Nar Narayan diocese filed the case. Shastri Yagnapurushdas had passed before the case finalized and reached a verdict in 1951.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145565/
https://libertatem.in/blog/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-others-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-anr/
https://www.legalbites.in/amp/landmark-judgements/case-study-sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-ors-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-another-943421 Ram112313 ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swaminarayan Sampradaya article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3Auto-archiving period: 15 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The contents of the Criticism of Swaminarayan sect page were merged into Swaminarayan Sampradaya on 03-Nov-2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | The contents of the Swaminarayan Sampraday page were merged into Swaminarayan Sampradaya on 29 December 2019. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history. |
This is gross misconduct and usage of this talk page where things get blatantly disregarded. I have posted twice here for items to be discussed and not once has an individual commented on what I have had to say. This is simply shows that individuals "pick & choose" items to discuss and have blatant disregard for the more serious points of discussion.
Content such as the 'Gunatit Samaj' need to be wholly re-edited and structured in a way which is coherent and more importantly factual, currently the content written there is heavily biased & lacks basis as it does not correlate to the sources provided. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 21:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi
GunatitSamaj1966, the information regarding Gunatit Samaj is sourced primarily from Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) which are independent scholarly sources. While you claim that the articles does not correlate to the sources provided, I have checked the sources, and it appears that the article does correlate with the cited sources. Please see below the excerpts from the respective sources.
Melton 2020:
Williams 2001/2018:
To address your other point about why things are deleted without discussion, it appears there is a bot that automatically deletes inactive threads. I would assume that since your claims were not based in fact, no one took the time to reply, and the bot deleted the inactive thread. Finally, Wikipedia editors are volunteers who pick and choose what discussions engage in as per their interests or inclinations. That is not “gross misconduct” that is how Wikipedia is designed to work. So, there is no bias or gross misconduct as you are claiming, however please note that continuing to make such baseless claims and accusations may be viewed by other editors as WP:TE, and that might deter other editors from seriously engaging with your points. Apollo1203 ( talk) 21:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
The "scholarly" sources do not provide a view which is 'holisitic' thus are heavily biased. My claims are not "baseless" as you have stated this is simply how it is! Note that in the said section regarding the Gunatit Samaj there seems to be a form of scholastic prejudice due to the sources used to reference the content there. It woul GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
It would seem fit to have sources which do not conform to this scholastic prejudice/bias to give a more holistic understanding of the Gunatit Samaj. Currently, this is not the case and alignment towards the views of BAPS is evident. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
"The brothers were expelled after it was discovered that Dadubhai illicitly collected and misappropriated funds and, falsely claiming that he was acting on the organization’s behalf" - where is this stated in the aforementioned texts? This is simply hearsay added by parties who have an "issue" with the said group! Unfortunately, I do not see the texts by Williams & Melton as being "valid" sources as there is no inclusion of the views of other parties i.e. the Gunatit Samaj in their texts, thus they have illustrated a one-sided view with complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj. As the content currently stands on Wikipedia it portrays immense bias & some form of prejudice thus is not "valid" in my opinion, the content should come from a wide range of sources as opposed to having only scholarly sources which are heavily influenced by opposing individuals. I do apologise if I have caused any inconvenience. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 11:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
What I do suggest is to remove the entirety of the Gunatit Samaj from the page, the reason for this is that I will collate a number of "proper" sources which affirms views from each party involved with the Gunatit Samaj. If this is possible? GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 17:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
As you mention that Wikipedia requires sources which have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", if Wikipedia prides itself in allowing sources which are "fact-checked" and "accurate" then Wikipedia & it's policy makers should revise these policies as the sources provided here are not at all "fact-checked" nor "accurate" as there is some form 'scholarly bias'. At no point in any of the authored texts has there been "proper" fact-checking this negates the usage of the texts in the context of the Gunatit Samaj. The aforementioned texts authored by Melton & Williams have a complete disregard for the Gunatit Samaj in its entirety as no party from the Gunatit Samaj had engaged in verifying the accuracy/validity of the text or to express & present their views on the matter. The matter concerning the Gunatit Samaj in relation to both texts had come from a heavily biased source thus is not valid to be presented here as a "fact-checked" and "accurate" source". As you mention if I do find independent, reliable, published sources that refute what Melton and Williams state and support my version then the editors should indeed publish the amended version. I am currently in process of doing this. GunatitSamaj1966 ( talk) 16:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ragas1771 and GunatitSamaj1966. Just a FYI, The users above were engaging in meat/sock puppetry and were subsequently banned for POV pushing in favor of the Baps branch. It seems your concerns are consistent with that pro-BAPS pov pushing. Feel free to start a new fresh section and outline what's currently on the page and what is the accurate verbiage and post the sources that support the change and reach a consensus with any interested users. Kbhatt22 ( talk) 04:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
swaminarayan vadtal gadi Aacharya Named is Rakepshad ji mharaj 2008 in a Active.... It on this time 2022 and after to continuously... please check and changes.. 2405:204:858C:A77E:762D:BE7E:2C3D:8A54 ( talk) 06:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
@ Jonathansammy: Hey!! I don't have access to the full source you cited in this section but the preview page that I could see uses the term "members" of the swaminarayan sect. Not sure if later it outlines the whole faith or specific branches partaking in attempts to ban castes. Based on these 3 sources: 1, 2, 3....It seems that The Baps branch and its founder were the one pursuing the caste based discrimination. Might make sense to outline that nuance in this section for clarity. Kbhatt22 ( talk) 04:13, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
The lowest social groups, such as dalits and adivasis, did not join the sect in significant numbers. Makrand Mehta has shown in his article how untouchables were not permitted to enter Swaminarayan temples, though in one case a separate temple was constructed for them.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Firslty lord Swaminarayan is not avatar of Krishna, yet krishna is avatar of Swaminarayan, change this as soon as possible, do not pass any wrong message if you doesn't know.
His Pragtya is at 2 April, 1781 change this 192.75.211.200 ( talk) 16:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The BAPS did not file the case and did not partake in the case. I have shared various links to the court case in which it is shown that the Nar Narayan diocese filed the case. Shastri Yagnapurushdas had passed before the case finalized and reached a verdict in 1951.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/145565/
https://libertatem.in/blog/sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-others-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-anr/
https://www.legalbites.in/amp/landmark-judgements/case-study-sastri-yagnapurushadji-and-ors-v-muldas-brudardas-vaishya-and-another-943421 Ram112313 ( talk) 23:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)