Talk:Pramukh Swami Maharaj/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Referencing[edit]

Hey people. As this section (discussion page) is for IMPROVING articles, I would like to take a moment to discuss having a source for any information on the article (page). If we want Pramukh Swami Maharaj to be taken seriously, as a person and an article, then we have to do the service of actually adhering to the guidelines of Wikipedia. We need to reference information where possible, whether it's on the web or in a book. If you're not sure how to cite something, feel free to check out the following:

Other things to be wary of when we add information to the article:

  • Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - We cannot add words to show the true greatness of Pramukh Swami Maharaj as the devotees of BAPS would understand, simply by adding our thoughts. We need to use resources to help show why we believe what we believe (which is where referencing comes in). Also, if we continue to add whatever we think, people that disagree will do the same, leaving a stain on the article.
  • Tone - We need to make sure the article is generally neat, and clean. A Messy article is bound to have messy information, and will be sure to leave a messy impression.
  • Discussing - Now I don't mean goshti, per se. I mean that this page need to be made use of for major changes, and teamwork is required if we want the article to end up looking tidy, as oppose to having a Rambo come along and change everything to what he/she feels is best, not realising that the article is rubbish in unforeseen ways, simply not realised by the editor (aka Rambo).

As I mentioned, we need to make sure we adhere to Wikipedia methods if we want a respectable article, and to have a respectable article improves peoples knowledge of what's in the article. If I had the time, I'd completely re-work the article, but I'm tied up with revision and the mammoth Akshardham (Delhi) article clean-up (if you are interested in my progress, see my progress here). Also, feel free to contact me on editing articles better. I'm not great as an editor, but I know enough to make articles good.

So I'll finish off with a clear message; make sure you take the article seriously, in order for others to take it seriously also. Thank you. -- Harish - 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

My last edits didn't rm vandalism but irrelevant information    Juthani1   tcs 00:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Paradox and Future Successor Section[edit]

User:Swamifraud's edit adding a section labeled “Paradox” violates principles of neutrality and demonstrates that Swamifaud has engaged in inappropriate WP:Cherrypicking with regard to his/her citations. In citing to Raymond Williams' An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (Citation 67 a, b, c), Swamifraud misrepresents this reference's actual text in order to selectively present a biased point of view. The actual text of the Williams source, on pages 94-95, reads:

“The paradox is that Pramukh Swami is revered as the manifestation of the eternal akshar even though he does not claim divinity for himself or demand such honors. His role forbids such claims because pride, self-praise, and ostentation are forbidden by the rules of conduct for sadhus.

When I asked him if his physical body is divine, he said that it is not his place to say. He seems never to praise himself or to demand worship. He maintained that his purpose is not to lead people to worship him, but to point them to correct worship of Swaminarayan. He worships Swaminarayan and gives reverence to his predecessors. The image of Swaminarayan is always before him, and he directs the worship to the image. All garlands and gifts presented to him are first presented before the image. When there is the chanting of the list of the spiritual hierarchy, the guruparampara, he stops with the name of his immediate predecessor, Yogiji Maharaj, or chants "Narayana" while the other devotees shout "Pramukh Swami Maharaj." Followers see this as an evidence of the humility and self-denial that are appropriate to a devotee, a covering of his true radiance, and this inspires them to shower him with even greater honor and worship.”

A comparison of this source to User:Swamifraud's edits reveals numerous instances of misrepresentation:

1. The first sentence of Swamifraud's edits misstates the Williams text in order to imply that Pramukh Swami's role within BAPS as the manifestation of Akshar is a “forbidden claim,” whereas the actual Williams text merely describes a perceived contrast between BAPS devotees' belief in this regard and the observation that Pramukh Swami does not claim divinity or demand honors for himself.
2. The third sentence again implies that Pramukh Swami claims divinity for himself, whereas Williams' actual text states the exact opposite in multiple instances (see paragraph 2 of the above Williams excerpt).
3. The fifth sentence improperly uses a quote from the Williams text to refer to something unrelated to the actual text. User:Swamifraud's edit couples a reference to murtis of Pramukh Swami in BAPS mandirs with an ostensibly relevant quote from Williams: “Followers see this as evidence of humility and self-denial...etc.” In reality, this quote from Williams page 95 refers to Pramukh Swami's practice of declining to chant his name along with those of his predecessors.

User:Swamifraud's misuse of quotations and paraphrasing constitutes improper WP:Cherrypicking and does so in a way that violates Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. More fundamentally, Swamifraud's addition of a new section entitled “Paradox” itself presents a biased opinion that is inappropriate for this article. WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV makes clear that such claims cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if they were facts. Characterizing Pramukh Swami's role in BAPS as a “paradox” applies a loaded label to Swamifraud's mis-cited assertions. These edits therefore detract from the article's quality, which is why I have removed them. HinduPundit (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:HinduPundit is correct in their assessment of the errors regarding the Paradox section. User:Swamifraud's talk page post above does not address any of these errors, but seems to be baiting User:HinduPundit. I am removing the Paradox section, and request that it not be inserted until User:HinduPundit's explanation above is addressed. Sacredsea (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:SacredSea's decision to remove the Paradox section. User:HinduPundit has raised several glaring errors in this section. User:SwamiFraud and user: 141.217.84.55 have failed to address any of these issues. Voicing an opinion on Pramukh Swami's health is not a relevant consideration in this discussion. Accordingly, I'm removing the section. Actionjackson09 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Along the same lines, the addition of the future successor section seems irrelevant if it is only saying that it is not clear who the future successor is. It would only be relevant if there was some established clarity on the future successor. If we were to follow the logic of the editor who added this section, then every leader of any organization would have to have a section titled “future successor”on their Wikipedia page only to say that the future successor is unknown. Thus, until there is some verifiable reference on who the designated future successor is, I’m removing the section. I'd like to hear what other editors feel about this.Sacredsea (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, User:Swamifraud and User:141.217.84.55's comments above violate wikipedia policies regarding biographies of living people, particularly regarding lack of neutral point of view and verifiability. The tone is also not dispassionate, as the editors seem to have imported off-wiki disputes into wikipedia judging from their talk page posts in the BAPS article where they are avowedly antagonistic to the group and persons about whom they are editing. Both users have persistently violated this policy and that could result in them being blocked from editing, since such actions are harmful to wikipedia. So, I would advise such users to desist from editing BAPS-related pages unless they can edit with neutrality.Sacredsea (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:SwamiFraud and user: 141.217.84.55 have clearly made edits without adhering to several Wikipedia policies and as a result I think the removal of the paradox section is warranted. There is a glaring lack of a neutral point of view in their edits and the persistent edit-warring they engage in is doing nothing to improve this article. Rooneywayne17 (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Abuse Allegations[edit]

Allegations have not been proved. As such, doesn't belong in article.--Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{{1}}}

Per Wikipedia:NOTGOSSIP you cannot add some useless allegations that have no effect on his life/biography. He was arrested? He was jailed? He has been convicted? If your answer is a NO, then don't add it again. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::Sorry bud, I read WP:CRIME inside out and he meets the criteria for notability and have provided several sources of the allegations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Do not revert my edit unless you have actual legitimate reason to or else that is vandalism.Swamiblue (talk) 04:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read anything and you are still as disruptive like you were before and actually worse since you have came up with the whole new policy that your edits should not be reverted unless they are vandalism. None of these sources say that these allegations are true other than the 2 involved gurus who have shown no evidence. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::::I understand your point. I am not clear if you have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime_victims_and_perpetrators. It clearly states "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." How about allowing some further discussion with other users and admins before reverting my edit with out merit?Swamiblue (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I told you to create a new article? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{{1}}}

Parroting adds nothing to credibility of an allegation. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So two ex-members made allegations and that's it? Nothing further? If so, doesn't belong in article. --NeilN talk to me 09:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LASTNAME[edit]

Is there a reason why this article goes completely against WP:LASTNAME? If not, I will be doing a search and replace. --NeilN talk to me 10:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read the policy and agree that you should do a find and replace.Swamiblue (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


NeilN, I think you're referring to the "Early Years" section, which uses his given name in discussing his life before initiation into the monastic fold. Doing so is warranted here, in light of WP:LASTNAME's recognition that using the subject's given name rather than the surname is appropriate in certain cultural or geographic contexts. Here, religious figures in India are commonly known by their first names in reference to the time period before they were ordained or changed their name. For example, the biographical article for Swami Vivekanand (a GA-class article) uses his given name extensively, throughout the "Early Life" section. Similarly, the article for Mother Theresa refers to her by her given name in discussing her life before she took her religious vows. Accordingly, referring to Pramukh Swami Maharaj as Shantilal with respect to the period of time before he was initiated into the monastic life and given a new name would be proper in this context. HinduPundit (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


::Thanks. User:NeilN, would you be able to change it?

Swamiblue (talk) 02:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016[edit]

i request you to upload the latest photo pramukh swami maharaj and also the links to watch his guruhari darshan. 103.240.78.113 (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Please provide a suggested image that conformed with requirements at WP:IUP EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Off-Topic Discussion and Content that Violates WP:BLP[edit]

User:Swamiblue who originally added the BLP material and off-topic discussion needs to remove their contributions on this Talk page since they do not adhere to the guidelines and policies that relate to Talk pages. I would also like the editors (User:Bladesmulti, User:NeilN, Rooneywayne17, HinduPundit, Sacredsea, Actionjackson09) who have participated in the past - by commenting on these off-topic discussions initiated by User:Swamiblue - to also remove their posts - since these discussions violate Talk page polices. I suggest we all take a vote on removing these off-topic content that adds nothing substantial. This would require other editors who made a post or post(s) in the past to reply to this thread so that we can clean up this space. Hope we can all resolve these issues. Thanks Kapil.xerox (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that this talk page discussion was resolved last year. Two ex-members made allegations and nothing came from it. The articles that Swamiblue is using to source are from 2013 and there have been no further developments. This doesn’t belong in the article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Actionjackson09. It is clear from the talk page post above that User:Swamiblue's suggestion on the talk page is a violation of WP:BLP as the discussion with User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN some time ago had made clear. This is why the information suggested by User:Swamiblue is not in the article, so that issue is not the matter of debate here. Moreover, as User:NeilN suggests, the BLP violation is not even about WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPGOSSIP. In any case, what is clear is that it is a violation of WP:BLP. As such, the policy for BLP violations is very clear- immediate deletion (WP:BLP). This includes all wikipedia user spaces, not just articles, as is made clear in WP:BLPTALK. So, Kapil.xerox is incorrect in asking for the relevant users to delete that talk page post. It can and should be summarily deleted by anyone according to the policies mentioned. Moreover, according to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, once the offending text has been summarily deleted by any editor, unlike in other situations on wikipedia where some consensus is required to make a change, in this case, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore this material, meaning they must establish consensus before doing so. So, based on these very clearly laid out BLP policies, I think Kapil.xerox or anyone can summarily delete the talk page post, as it contains information in violation of WP:BLP. Sacredsea (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the content in question remains improper (just as it was in 2014) for inclusion both in the article and this talk page on WP:BLP grounds. Further, Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (WP:TALKO) state that it is appropriate for an editor to remove another editor's talk page comments if they comprise prohibited material, including content that violates WP:BLP. In my view, the prior discussions on this page regarding such content should thus be removed. HinduPundit (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the involved editors here agree on this issue. The off-topic content posted on the Talk page is indeed out of place as it violates Wikipedia policies relating to talk pages. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a few of your buddies agreed does not mean consensus was reached. It is not clear why you are obsessed with the talk page when the article itself does not mention the sexual abuse allegations. This was an official response from the sect itself acknowledging the accusations and a talk page to include the soon to be future successorship issue. I am going to ask you to contain yourself until some users not directly apart of the group or may have conflict of interest give their opinion. Several articles have reported the allegations and mentioned that the administrative duties are finally prescribed to Mahant swami.

Swamiblue (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

: I removed some things that are not beneficial to the talk page. I hope that some users such as User:Dr.K., User:EvergreenFir, User: Kkm010 and user:Nizil Shah can add before I reach out to more users not involved with the group.Swamiblue (talk) 22:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the talk page discussion portion that is in violation of WP:BLP. It seems as though consensus to remove has been reached regarding this discussion. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


There is an ongoing discussion. Please do not haphazardly remove sections from wiki talk pages because you feel like it. These are real accusations and I brought it up to incorporate it in the article. If the consensus was not to include it in the article, then STOP whitewashing the talk page. Also, do you have a conflict of interest in this group? I left you a message on your talk page.Swamiblue (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that there is no further discussion on this issue and consensus has been reached that inclusion in the talkpage is a BLP violation as I had mentioned above, thus I am remedying issue. Sacredsea (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the talk page discussion that violates WP:BLP was reverted, I think since I did not give an edit summary. This time I am removing it with an appropriate edit summary. If anyone feels after going through the previous discussion in this section if my action is out of line with wikipedia policy which I stated in my above post on 22 March 2016, I would love to have a discussion here on that issue. Thanks.Sacredsea (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to remove the discussion altogether. The discussion was whether the allegations should be included in the article. The consensus was no. I don't see how this blatantly violates BLP. I have collapse the discussion, but it should stay as a reference and can be used to point out to other editors who want to insert the same allegations into the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am copying here an earlier post explaining why this is a blatant WP:BLP violation. The fact that it violates WP:BLP is the consensus of editors so far. Until that consensus changes, I am again removing it for violation. Copied text here:I agree with Actionjackson09. It is clear from the talk page post above that User:Swamiblue's suggestion on the talk page is a violation of WP:BLP as the discussion with User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN some time ago had made clear. This is why the information suggested by User:Swamiblue is not in the article, so that issue is not the matter of debate here. Moreover, as User:NeilN suggests, the BLP violation is not even about WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPGOSSIP. In any case, what is clear is that it is a violation of WP:BLP. As such, the policy for BLP violations is very clear- immediate deletion (WP:BLP). This includes all wikipedia user spaces, not just articles, as is made clear in WP:BLPTALK. So, Kapil.xerox is incorrect in asking for the relevant users to delete that talk page post. It can and should be summarily deleted by anyone according to the policies mentioned. Moreover, according to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, once the offending text has been summarily deleted by any editor, unlike in other situations on wikipedia where some consensus is required to make a change, in this case, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore this material, meaning they must establish consensus before doing so. So, based on these very clearly laid out BLP policies, I think Kapil.xerox or anyone can summarily delete the talk page post, as it contains information in violation of WP:BLP. Sacredsea (talk) 4:07 pm, 22 March 2016, Tuesday (3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−4) Sacredsea (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Section[edit]

Based on tag, added to the lead section.Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the lead section has been updated - but the tag has not been removed. Removed tag. Thanks User:Actionjackson09 for your contributions. Kapil.xerox (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refusal by City of Chino Hills to provide police escort[edit]

Pramukh was denied police escort from the sheriff in Chino Hills where the group just open a new facility. Article from the Chino Champion from Chino, California on page 3 states, "The fifth spiritual successor of the BAPS Hindu organization will arrive at the Chino Airport in a chartered flight today (Sept. 8) for an eight-day festival in Chino Hills. The BAPS’ request for a sheriff’s department escort for Pramukh Swami Maharaj was denied by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, according to spokeswoman Jodi Miller. “During discussions about the request, a decision was made that we would not provide an escort from the airport,” Ms. Miller said on Thursday. The festival, which is not open to the public, will take place at the Temple site in Chino Hills at Monte Vista Ave., east of the Chino Valley Freeway, where large tents have been set up. According to an e-mail from BAPS to Chino Airport Manager John Frymyer, approximately 10 vehicles with BAPS representatives will pick up the spiritual leader and several of his staff members at approximately 7 p.m. The leader will depart from the Chino Airport the morning of Monday, Sept. 17. Mr. Frymyer said the spiritual leader is not a “George Bush or Bill Clinton,” but he is considered the highest ranking person in the BAPS religion. He said he was notified by BAPS that the leader was flying into the Chino Airport on a private plane and that he would be received by Councilmen Bill Kruger and Curt Hagman, and former Councilman Gary Larson. Mr. Kruger and Mr. Hagman confirmed that they would be waiting at the airport for his arrival. Mr. Kruger said he will greet the leader out of courtesy. Mr. Hagman said whenever a dignitary arrives in the Chino Valley, he will try to meet with him. According to BAPS spokesman Govind Vaghashia, the spiritual leader will reside in Chino Hills during the eight-day festival. Mr. Vaghashia said the festival is not open to the public because BAPS must comply with permit requirements on attendance. Some of the events will be invitation-only, he said. The Temple’s foundation has recently been built, and a stone laying ceremony will culminate the festival on Sunday, Sept. 16. Mr. Vaghashia said the sheriff’s escort had been requested to ensure a safe journey for Pramukh Swami Maharaj. “He has been escorted by the police in his travels for the last 10 to 15 years,” he said."

Does this need to be included in the article? World famous guru denied police. Seems like it need to be included. What do the baps members here think? What does he need protection from? Swamiblue (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016[edit]

223.196.90.2 (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC) The spiritual head of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha Pramukh Swami Maharaj was under-treatment for chest infection and he passed away on 13th August 2016 ( Saturday ) in Sarangpur (Gujarat) around 6 PM.[reply]

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016[edit]


Died on 13/08/2016

117.220.208.177 (talk) 14:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016[edit]

Successor: Mahant Swami Maharaj Source: http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2016/Final-Darshan-and-Rites-of-Pramukh-Swami-Maharaj-9961.aspx


86.189.220.246 (talk) 17:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: You have not mentioned in change X to Y format. Secondly your source doesn't say this! VarunFEB2003 I am Offline 13:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2016[edit]

Pramukh Swami Maharaj died at the age of 95 not 94 and in Sarangpur, India not Sarangpur.

74.123.93.146 (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.Topher385 (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016[edit]

"Please change Died 13 August 2016(age 94) Salangpur, Botad district, Gujarat, India to Died 13 August 2016(age 95) Salangpur, Botad district, Gujarat, India because He was 95 years old."


Raj Mistry16 (talk) 18:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: He would not have turned 95 until December. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pramukh Swami Maharaj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Names[edit]

Sarangpur is spelled wrong, it says Salangpur on it Jiaparekh (talk) 18:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pramukh Swami Sexual Abuse[edit]

Pramukh Swami was accused of raping two sadhus in BAPS. The sect responded to the allegations. This allegation should be included in the article. Please see the sources and respond:

http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/

136.2.16.182 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@136.2.16.182 According to (WP:NOTSCANDAL), Wikipedia is not a place to promote gossip or scandals. There have not been any developments of these allegations since they were made in 2013. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to include in the article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not gossip. The catholic church has an entire article dedicated for there accusations. Why should this not be included? An accusation is simply that. It was accused and denied. It is notable. I will request for some help. 136.2.16.181 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also after research the metoo movement and other sex scandal related articles. An accusation and denial at this level belongs in this article as it appears this swami was very powerful until his death and capable of rape. It would be a simple inclusion. I can give dozens of examples of accusations in wikipedia profiles.

136.2.16.181 (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@136.2.16.182: I don’t find the Catholic Church sexual abuse scandal to be a compelling parallel here. That page is dedicated to discussing the “many allegations, investigations, trials, convictions, and revelations about decades of attempts by Church officials to cover up reported incidents.” That page is about a systemic issue prevalent within an organization, whereas your proposed addition is that of a singular allegation against an individual, which is not supported by more than one secondary source. Hence, it would give undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to include a mention of it in the article. On the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases page, there are over 400 sources, ranging from credible newspapers, academic research papers, and books published by respected publishing houses that have been used to support discussion of the issue. On the other hand, the news source you have cited appears to be the only source, news or otherwise, covering this accusation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skubydoo (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the policies and comments made by Skubydoo and Harshmellow717, I agree that adding this allegation is not warranted. Also, I looked through the previous discussions on the talk page and it appears that this topic was discussed in 2014 and closed on 27 June 2016. It does not need to be re-opened and discussed again.Apollo1203 (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In looking at this talk page, it seems these allegations have been discussed multiple times but were never included given that they have not been corroborated by any other sources and including them would be scandal mongering. Again, comparing this to the Catholic Church’s sexual abuse scandals doesn’t seem logical either. In this case, it’s one allegation which is not noteworthy. Finally, if we’re talking about semantics, the accusation was not specifically labeled ‘rape’ as the above user has written and would therefore not be an accurate summary of the source.ThaNDNman224 (talk) 22:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the reasons noted above and do not think these allegations merit inclusion into the article. Moksha88 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2020[edit]

Instead of writing "died" write "returned to Akshardham" because as we know the satpurush never leaves the earth and writing died make it feel like he is gone but in reality he is living through the satpurush, Mahant Swami Maharaj. Kushpatel705 (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We reflect what WP:RS say. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pramukh_Swami_Maharaj/Archive_1&oldid=1146955702"