Talk:Swaminarayan Sampraday

User Box

For those interested in a Swaminarayan Sampraday User Box on their User page, add {{User:UBX/ Swaminarayan Sampraday}}, to your User page.

Re-structuring the article

Jay Swaminarayan to all,

Jai Swaminarayan to all devotees,

I would like to request all users who have an interest and knowledge of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya to add their input to this discussion. I have copied, pasted and edited sections and come up with a rough draft, which is nowhere near complete. However we could use it as a basis or an aid to re-structure the actual article. Rather than personal edits if we present ideas on the page and then if we come to a concensus then we can implement the changes. Your co-operation is much appreciated.

Haribhagat 12:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan Haribhagat

I think that’s a good point you have made about continues communication between all of us but what kinds of things or information do we need to improve the page if you can list out some sub headings maybe we can work on in it and also I have a question about the following quote “However, in the publication, Sri Hari nu Adbhut Varta, Adbhutanand Swami has written, "Maharaj introduced the holy names of Swami & Narayan," which lends to the belief of two entities embedded within the Swaminarayan mantra itself” Is this really justified?

Ek Satsangi

Jai Swaminarayan,

The quote in question is an edit by a BAPS devotee Moksha88. He is vandalising the page and trying to propagate his personal philosphy(BAPS) on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page. I will be informing the admin users about his behaviour.

Haribhagat 14:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan guys

I must agree with Haribhagat on this its very unfair to state such quotations which are not justified and ones which propagate your BAPS faith also might I add its very unfair as well because there is noting like this quotation stated on the BAPS so why bring here without being discussed and also I have two questions for you Moksha88, with all respect given wherever due “why is there very little information about the origin, authenticity and believes of BAPS on the BAPS page? And second question is please explain to me your eplaination of the Vachanamrut - Gadhada First Prakhan 41? Thanks

Das No Das Raj - सनातन धर्म 15:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan,

As for my edit, it was not right for me to "vandalize" on your page as you so stated. Raj, there's a brief origin section on the BAPS page, but it needs to be expanded. I will put that quote there then; by the way, that publication, Shri Hari nu Adbhut Varta, has been released by the Amdavad Gadi, so do read it when you get a chance.

Moksha88 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no cause for throwing around accusations of vandalism - there has been an equal edit-warring undertaken by both Moksha88 and Haribhagat, AFAIK. Let's just stick to discussing how best to improve the article. Sfacets 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Bhagwan Swaminarayan

Jai Swaminarayan,

With the Swaminarayan Sampradaya page now looking adequate enough, i would now like to request users to turn their attention to the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page. We must get a section on tha page which states that Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up a Sampradaya and the Key components of the Sampradaya(ie Murti, Acharyas, Shastras, Sant, Haribhaktos). At the moment it is lacking this information therefore making it incomplete. Now users of the BAPS sect are dead against this as it does not go to their liking, but we must make sure that the inclusion of this information is agreed. Remember the article should represent quality and accurate information which we should endeavour to provide. It does not need to be long but should explain the basics. I have challenged various users on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan talk page and they seem to have backed down on the points which i make. I have also posted the same to Sfacets talk page and as of yet there has been no reply. If we could re-emphasise the point with the backing of a few users (Which requires you to register) then our proposal will have more effect. Let me know what you think.

Haribhagat 12:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions/Queries

It had been decided some time back for the page Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday to be merged with Bhagwan Swaminarayan why are people going against this now please can this be done because the Acharya's section is very much to do with the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page so why are you now splitting it up??

It has now been decided (see discussion on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan article) to split it. Please do not add information already found there to this article, sign in and/or sign your comments. Thanks, Sfacets 04:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Sfacets user keep changing this page to his benifit either he has a hidden which is he is a member of the BAPS group or he just does not like the Original Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday because this sampraday is all about Bhagwan Swaminarayan so why do you keep removing the info mation that was first placed on the Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday, than merged with Bhagwan Swaminarayan so if anything we should have a right on these writing because they were created by our devotees and unlike BAPS this is whom we are we preach about Bhagwan Swaminarayan full stop we do make our so called brand name bigger like the BAPS so please can you stop doing this.

Please read the discussion on Bhagwan Swaminarayan, here is an article for:

• BAPS
• Swaminarayan Sampraday
• Bhagwan Swaminarayan

So what's the problem? Please sign your comments. Sfacets 10:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets, you're ignorance yet again prevails. Haribhagat on a number of occasions has put across his point(which you in fact have not replied back to on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan talk page) Now let me re-iterate, Bhagwan Swaminarayan is the Swaminarayan Sampradaya he created it and he was the leader. He enforced that only this was his philosophy and those who did not follow that particular sect which he set up then they were to be regarded as outcastes(please read Shikshapatri slokh 207 - this is a book written by Bhagwan Swaminarayan). So why do you keep on ranting on about neutrality and all this other nonsense, it is clear that you have sided with moksha88(who is a staunch BAPS devotee and could not bear the fact that the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page was being written from the original scriptures of Swaminarayan rather than those of his own cult) You dont seem to know anything about Bhagwan Swaminarayan or his philosophy yet you seem to have taken the whole page/project upon yourself(supposedly to keep a NPOV) Yes Sfacets you are doing a great job you are portraying the page from one point of view and not actually including vital points and facts. Surely Wikipedias aim is to get quality and accurate information as opposed to biased and one sided information whom you seem to be siding with, perhaps because moksha88 begged you to do so. so you being the ever so knowledgeable person about Swaminarayan Bhagwan and his philosophy agreed and accepted everything moksha88 said) Great now show me the evidence? Back everything in that article with scriptural facts and point out the most vital instances in Bhagwan Swaminarayans life! Fact is Moksha88 a BAPS devotee will do it in his own way but will not give correct information yet the devotees of Swaminarayan Sampradaya set up by Swaminarayan Bhagwan will be able to give you accurate information backed up with scriptural evidence. Quite simple Swaminarayan Sampradaya was set up by Bhagwan Swaminarayan(an instance in his life - should be noted) also he set up Acharyas(an instance in his life - should be noted) Now if BAPS say if they talk about their sect why cant then all you have to say is, we are talking about Bhagwan Swaminarayans life. BAPS can have their little link at the bottom under see also but they do not appear anywhere in the life of Bhagwan Swaminarayan whereas Swaminarayan Sampradaya does. Quite simple dont you think Sfacets? Have a think about my comments, please do not gfet wound up by them. They are being made aggresively to make a point which at the moment seems to be unheard. Finally unsigned messages still can be answered/replied back to, unless you do not have a reply just like you did not have a reply for Haribhagats comments nor did any of the BAPS devotees! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.136.41 (talk • contribs)

This is an Encyclopedia, and is not based on religious scripture, but fact (scriptural facts is an oxymoron). Neutrality is nonsense? Maybe to you, not to any other (serious) editor on Wikipedia. Stop attempting to get your POV across, thi isn't the place for that, may I suggest a forum where you can settle your "philosophical" squabbles. For now it is abundantly clear that the creation of three distinct articles is the most neutral and unbiased way to go about it. (how can you not see that?) - Maybe if you had joined in the discussion (which has been going on for the previous two months) instead of blindly attempting to assert your point of view, you would have been able to change things. But a consensus has been reached - and if you don't like it, explain clearly why you oppose the changes, without your whole "holier than thou" approach. I get that you believe that your path is the true path, and that you don't like BAPS. Fine! Frankly, I don't care. Either join the discussion with intelligible arguments, or go and find something else to do with your time. And for crying out loud, sign your name! Sfacets 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Look, I'm not too happy either that the BAPS link has to be on this page, but as long as the link to this article is on the BAPS page, the BAPS link will stay UNDETERRED. Moksha88 14:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan Moksha88

I'd like to ask you what you mean by that last comment because to me it sounded as if you don’t want to be associated with the Original Swaminarayan Sampraday which Bhagwan Swaminarayan created? This would look very odd for somebody whom calls himself a Swaminarayan Satsangi????

Raj - सनातन धर्म 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jai Swaminarayan

Moksha88, the feeling is mutual. Raj it would be pointless to discuss this point as moksha88 has made his views clear on the Bhagwan Swaminarayan talk page. Forget about it and let us now concentrate on the task at hand, which is to improve the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article.

Haribhagat 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding any "additional description" to the BAPS link on this page as well as the Original Sampraday link on the BAPS page. If you truly wish to avoid edit wars, like you stated in the other articles, then this would be the best route to accomplish that.

Moksha88 11:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

BAPS - Offshoot - sources

Haribhagat, could you please provide sources proving your claims? Failing this, it will be removed as OR (original research). Sfacets 14:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

Sounds good - but perhaps this information would be better on the main Bhagwan Swaminarayan article or in the BAPS article? There is no need to add a description to the see also link as such. Sfacets 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, i did so in the past on the BAPS page but Moksha88 prevented me from doing so by reverting the article. If i am permitted i would like to go about editing the 3 articles - Bhagwan Swaminarayan, Swaminarayan Sampradaya and BAPS. I will only edit parts which need to be edited and will provide references at all times if needed. Also i have placed posts on your talk page about editing the Bhagwan Swaminarayan page, to add a section about the sect which Bhagwan Swaminarayan set up. I will be more than happy to provide references to save disputes regarding the issue. Let me know what you think.

Haribhagat 15:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The important distinction is that Shastriji Maharaj first left and was then later declared excommunicated by the Swaminarayan Sampraday. A section on the 'Origins of BAPS' is in the works which will have full citations. Moksha88 00:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not feel tat a description is needed next to the link to the BAPS article, however there may be merit to including it in the BAPS article itself - including the sources, and insuring that the description is given in a NPOV manner. Sfacets 06:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the harm, it is stating the fact and how the actual sampradaya feels about the group. In my opinion, those who are interested in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya should know about this information. Either let it be as a link description or i could add a section to the Swaminarayan Sampradaya article, as i cannot see users agreeing for that information to be placed on the BAPS page.

Haribhagat 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Haribhagat, you said that the link description shoudl stand as it describes "how the actual sampradaya feels about the group," but Wikipedia adheres to NPOV. Just as the link to this article on the BAPS page has no extra description for "clarification" and just as it is not separated with a space, the BAPS link should be left alone in a similar fashion. Moksha88 03:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps i did not put it correctly, it may be how they feel but more importantly than that it is a fact. One which has been aceepted by the high court, so for that reason in context of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya i feel it should be mentioned. Now i am willing to leave it at that, but if you wish to pursue then i will remove the description and create a title heading. In which i will explain the differences and then i could add a similar section on the BAPS page as it directly applies, let me know what you think. With the link on the BAPS page, i was meaning to add a description but due to this petty editing war i thought i would wait until it calms down and then go about editing it.

Haribhagat 15:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources/context

The article currently contains one source. This is not acceptable, since it means that the vast majority of the article is Original research (WP:OR). Sources should be supplied for any claim.

The context and terminology is ill-defined - some users may fnd this article confusing.

Please do not remove the templates. Sfacets 00:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jay Swaminarayan All

Hello guys nice to be back, I was away most of the time due me finishing my studies but anyway enough of that. I like how both the “Bhagwan Swaminarayan” page and “Swaminarayan Sampraday” pages are looking, I understand there are a few minor bits to work on as stated by SFacts, such there only being one reference but is that really a issue if so than please Sfacts state which parts are needing a reference and I do accept your second point of this page being a little confusing to a person whom has no knowledge of Bhagwan Swaminarayan or his Sampraday, so I will put forward this issue we will tackle it rest assure if there is anything else not up to your or anyone else’s satisfaction than feel free to state on this discussion board but under NO circumstances should you take it upon your selves to implement the changes you feel are needed.

The point of wikipedia is that everyone can take it upon them selves to make changes. But hopefully people won't without knowledge of the subject.

There are alot of terms used in the article that english speakers would not be familiar with that have valid English substitutes: murti (idol), darshan (worship), mandir (temple). I'm not intimately familiar with this subject, but I've been to many Swaminarayan mandirs and this article is confusing even to me. Take this sentence for example "It was during this sabha, whilst explaining that God is one, He is Narayan, He is our Swami, Bhagwan Swaminarayan introduced ‘the father of all Mantras’, Swaminarayan." First, what is a sabha? Also, what does it mean that Bhagwan Swaminarayn introduced Swaminarayan? Did he introduce a new position or a new title or a new name or a new person or what? Akubhai 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

sabha means assembly. and the sentence meant to say Swaminarayan introduce the "Swaminarayan" Mantra. Which is the word "Swami-Narayan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.171.33 (talk) 04:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Mandir's

I have made pages for 6 Mandirs made by Lord Swaminarayan - Ahmedabad, Vadtal, Bhuj, Dholera, Junagadh and Gadhada and linked them to the Swaminarayan Sampraday page.I request all to help prepare these pages with all the info that they have - please contribute to these pages wherever possible. Swaminobhakt 10:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This article already covers Swaminarayan faith.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They should not be merged. The faith consists of several groups. READ the faith article first. The Swaminarayan Sampraday is just a part of it    Juthani1   ^tcs 16:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• This article's lead "According to the Indian Express newspaper, followers of the Swaminarayan faith number over 2 crore (or 20 million". So what is the distinction between the Sampradaya which is "a sect established by Bhagwan Swaminarayan", sampradaya also means a tradition. "Swaminarayan Faith or Swaminarayan Sect is a modern tradition of Hinduism, in which followers offer devotion and worship Lord Swaminarayan as the final manifestation of God." ?

• Swaminarayan Sampraday and Faith articles both discuss the Gadis.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am confused now, Are the Sampraday and BAPS, 2 sub-sects/institutions of the faith??? If so, remove the merge proposal and note so in the article. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain - Bhagwan Swaminarayan established the Swaminarayan Sampraday. He istalled the Acharyas as heads of the Sampraday (something accepted by courts). Down the line, there has been a difference of philosophy and other grups like BAPS, Swaminarayan Gadi etc have been formed by people not accepting the Acharyas - today there are 5 organisations claiming successorship. Around The Globe^Contact 15:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please explain this in the lead of both articles.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New Merge tag

Pl. explain reason for current merge tag. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

From Talk: Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday Survey

Merge! Redheylin (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support merge. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Close as merge. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unclear words?

What does "now nivrut Acharya of the Ahmedabad gaadi" mean? What is nivrut and gaadi? Technical terms need to be linked or explained. --AW (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"Nivrut" - "retired", changed. Ahmedabad Gadi - explained and link in the article earlier. Any further issues? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I clarified the Gadi part in the beginning --AW (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

• Needs references (tags added)
• Use of primary references is not preferred. (The English translations can be wrong) See WP:PRIMARY
• I sensed language that smelled as glorification: "The Sampraday consolidates characters in societies, families and individuals. This is done by mass motivation and individual attention, through elevating projects for all, irrespective of class, creed, colour and country."--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I will look into those.

• I agree that neutral sources are the best, however where unavailable, there is no choice but to use Sampraday sources. I dont c an issue with this (per WP:YESPOV that Wikidas mentioned on the Swaminarayan article and the number of BAPS sources used on Akshardham (Delhi) (A GA article)). I reiterate, neutral sources should and will be used wherever possible, where not possible, I dont c an issue with Sampraday sources being used.

• Needs rewording and copy edits.

• Any further issues (You demoted the article from B to C so I guess there should be some more issues u saw!) Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

With due respect to the editor who evaluated this article from start to B, I don't disagree with the editor - the editor summary says evaluation was done as this article was better than "start". The B evaluation of this article came at a time when C grade did not exist. C is meant for articles which are better than start but not as good as B, in this case in terms of references and neutral language. Compare this article with Swaminarayan and you will know why this article is C and Swaminarayan is B. Statements like "The Sampraday consolidates characters in societies, families and individuals" "irrespective of class, creed, colour and country", which border neutral outsider references OR need to explicitly say that accoding to the community, things are so and so. In terms of an example of Hinduism, I interpret WP:YESPOV as follows - "Vishnu is the Supreme God" is a NON_NEUTRAL POV, but "According to Vaishnava belief, Vishnu is the Supreme God" is an acceptable POV which comes under YESPOV.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

World's edits

I disagree with World's edits; Swaminaryan followers fundamentally differ from practically all Hindus in believing that He is the Supreme Being himself. Also his followers differ from practically all Vaishnavite schools in holding that Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of the same supreme God, unlike Madhva of the Dvaita school and Chaitanya. This is significant and should be noted. Raj2004 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Please continue discussion on Talk:Swaminarayan and move this comment under my comments as well. Thanks ^The World 01:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swaminarayan Sampraday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090224190106/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com:80/articleshow/879612.cms to http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/879612.cms

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Swaminarayan Sampraday. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131214140729/http://www.vadtaldhamnj.info/My_Final_Webdesign/PDF%27s/Articles/Niskulanand%20Swami.pdf to http://www.vadtaldhamnj.info/My_Final_Webdesign/PDF%27s/Articles/Niskulanand%20Swami.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Criticism of Swaminarayan sect

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge articles. Moksha88 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

---

This should not be a standalone article, in my humble opinion, and can very well be part of the main article. First, we can start the "Criticism" section in the main article, and then if there is too much content, we can think of a separate article. Titodutta (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree this article should not be standalone (see WP:SUBPOV). Articles with POV subjects should start as sections of the main article which can then be migrated to independent article once there is enough content. In verifying the statements in this article, could you please list the page number referenced for this sentence, “Swaminarayana is also being criticised for being supportive of the caste system”? I was looking in the chapter and couldn’t seem to find it. Moksha88 (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Titodutta, I believe that both the article should be separate as this page will provide the space to adding the criticism of the sect and it can be better classified. Almost, all of the religions and sects have their own articles for the criticism and I think that this should be followed in this too. I am little busy now a days, otherwise, I have classic criticism of Swaminarayan by Karsandas Mulji, Dayananda Saraswati and modern criticism by Morari Bapu. This will be chaotic to include all these criticism of sect's tradition, philosophy and other things in one article of sect. Give me some time, I will add more and more criticism as I have study of this sect. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 12:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merged. Apollo1203 (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• I concur with @Titodutta:'s proposal and support merger in principle of the article Criticism of Swaminarayan sect . But, i am confused with what exactly is the difference in content scope of Swaminarayan Sampraday and Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition). In my understanding, the Sampraday article should talk about the people, traditions they follow, their population, and such. The main article on the tradition should include the establishment, history, beliefs and thus the criticism on the beliefs. The target article should hence be Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition). §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 13:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Dharmadhyaksha I believe you raise a valid point. What is the difference between the Swaminarayan Sampraday and Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) articles? Sampraday is Gujarati for spiritual tradition, so the Swaminarayan Sampraday is the term scholars use to describe the entire Swaminarayan tradition, and the current Swaminarayan Sampraday page refers to the original dioceses, Vadtal and Amdavad, established by Swaminarayan, the founder of the tradition. I also agree with Harshill69 that the criticism section should remain separate as they have added more material as they noted on their thread. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 01:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing the criteria for page mergers, I suggest the following changes and invite everyone’s comments:

• The current Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) page should be renamed to Swaminarayan Sampraday for the reasons mentioned above by TheNDNman224.
• Both the ‘Fundamentals’ and ‘Scriptures’ sections from the current Sampraday article should be merged with the Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition) article since they duplicate existing material.
• Both the ‘Mandirs’ and ‘Membership’ sections from the current Sampraday article should be merged since context is needed to understand these sections.
• The remaining article can then be devoted to each diocese.

Apollo1203 (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

• merge The material can be condensed and merged in the original article. -Nizil (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose merger as stated above in various threads. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

  @Harshil169: I think the article is not long enough to have its own separate article. Once the criticism section is long enough, we can have separate article on criticism as is with other religions. Please also express your opinion regarding merger of Swaminarayan Sampraday with Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition).-Nizil (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Closing the loop on the above discussion as consensus had been reached on the merger by merging the content from the criticism of swaminarayan sect article here. I inadvertently added it to the swaminarayan spiritual tradition page, not sure why there are 2 pages but it is now in the correct place. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

ThaNDNman, I was very confused in reviewing these pages but appreciate you moving this merger forward. In the future, it might be helpful to refer to WP:MERGE for guidance. I will close this thread as mentioned in Step #4 (WP:MERGECLOSE). Moksha88 (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Verifiability

In verifying the statements in this article, could you please list the page number referenced for this sentence, “Swaminarayana is also being criticised for being supportive of the caste system”? I was looking in the chapter and couldn’t seem to find it. Moksha88 (talk) 06:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Moksha88 click on the link, you’ll be landed on the page which states this.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Page numbers are missing for the citations from Kirin Narayan's book and a reference is needed for the claim "Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world. Apollo1203 (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Kirin Narayan source still needs page numbers. If you could tell me the chapter name, or page range, I can deliver you a PDF of chapter from Paywall database, so that you can add page numbers. Or you can use an online copy on Google books. --Gazal world (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: Let me give some time. When I opened this book in the Google book then page numbers were not visible and others pages were not in preview. What we have to do is searching by words. Regards,— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory Claims

As I was verifying the source, Chapter 6 (Sahajanand Swami's Approach to Caste), in the same reference used to cite “Swaminarayana is also being criticised for being supportive of the caste system,” contains many statements that refute that Swaminarayan was supportive of the caste system. For example: "[Sahajanand Swami's] principles of atma and Paramatama undergirded Sahajanand Swami's rejection of caste discrimination and distinction" (page 125). This is contradictory to what is being stated in this article. Apollo1203 (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added the page number for the quote cited in the article. As I have used the Oxford Scholarship Online copy, I have changed the URL from Google book to Oxford Scholarship, which is behind the paywall database. If you want to refer the chapter, feel free to ask me, I will deliver you a PDF of the chapter through mail. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Introduction Verifiability

Removed the sentence ‘situation of women in the Swaminarayan sect’ due to lack of source and no mention in the body of the article. This violates policy WP:VERIFIABILITY.Treehugger8891 (talk) 01:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reinstated it as Kajal Oza Vaidhya had recently took a dig at Nilkanth varni for situation of women.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Either way, it was never reflected in the article since its creation on September 20th. Please create a section which outlines the criticism before including it in the lead sentence WP:CREATELEAD.Moksha88 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

All things will be added. First resolve pending changes then create another issue.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

We should remove that line (situation of woman...) from the lead. Because Kaajal Oza Vaidya is not scholar in the field. We don't take seriously her opinion. --Gazal world (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You are right, WP:CREATELEAD is not a formal policy, just an essay. I meant to quote MOS:LEAD: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." This article has been in existence for 2 weeks, and this point has not been addressed. When it has been addressed, you can include it in the lead paragraph. Moksha88 (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I believe there are some good points brought up here in this discussion, having said that I believe after thoroughly reading the WP:VERIFIABILITY policy, Kaajal Oza Vaidya's opinion on this matter doesn't seem relevant. I would have to agree with the line of reasoning laid out by Treehugger8891 ThaNDNman224 (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Moksha88 that information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article, and it seems that consensus has also been reached on this point, so I am removing it. I have also removed the mention of Murari Bapu in the lead since it is no longer in the article.This will certainly change as the article changes.Sacredsea (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Dayanand Saraswati's opinion: WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE?

@Harshil169: I was able to find Kirin Narayan's book and realize your excerpts differed from what was in the text. I therefore edited it in accordance with WP:NOR, specifically WP:STICKTOSOURCE. In reviewing the actual context from which this assertion is cited, could you please clarify why including his opinion is not WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE based on the following, "In the Satyarth Prakash, first issued in 1875, Dayananda synthesized the views that he had delivered orally in lectures through north India. Sure enough, in this book I found the story that Swamiji had told, though in a very different form. The story appears in chapter 11, "A Refutation and Advocation of Indian Religions," which presents an unabashedly biased history of various sects within Hinduism. There are spirited exposes of the supposed logical absurdity in the mythology surrounding various deities; there are tirades against Gurus and sarcastic descriptions of the average ascetic's conduct. Many parts of the book are in dialogue form. When Swami Dayananda is asked about the Swami Narayan sect, he launches into a description of the founder's wiles." (141)? Thank you Moksha88 (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: We’re not here to check who bashed someone and who wrote biased history. We’re here to write it down what author or other person said about sect. It’s not our duty to check their bias. I wrote Wikipedia article in disappointing and Neutral tone but I can’t expect authors outside Wikipedia to be Neutral. If they’re then we wouldn’t have opinions at all. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Let me clarify the edits I made yesterday. Looking at page 143, there is no mention of a year of either when he made these statements nor when the Swaminarayan sect was established on this page. The closest thing I can find to the text is this statement, "In his view, it was a historical fact that Sahajananda decked himself out as Narayan to gain disciples," which is what I think you mean to say by including this quote, "It is historical fact that Sahajananda Swami presented himself as God to increase the number of disciples in the sect."

Is this right? If so, by adding words that aren't in the source, it's original research [WP:NOR, specifically WP:STICKTOSOURCE]. Therefore the only thing I could conclude from page 143 is the edit I made yesterday, "Hindu reformer Dayananda Saraswati questioned the acceptance of Sahajanand Swami." We can ask @Gazal world: to verify if you feel I'm incorrect. Otherwise, please cite other pages and/or sources from which you can draw other information if you wish to develop this opinion.

If you can't develop the notability and relevance of his opinion, his opinion is WP:UNDUE or WP:FRINGE and should be removed altogether. Just because a criticism appears in one secondary source doesn't make it notable, especially when it appears his views may have perceived extreme from the quote I initially referenced in this same book. Moksha88 (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: Wikipedia is for construction, not for destruction. If you have opinion then add it but just don't remove the lines and made it blank. Cooperate and make lines and add content in this article. Also, Sahjananda established sect in 1800 while Dayananda criticised the sect (or cult, in his opinion) in 1860s. Just to add chronological details about both is not WP:OR, this was just to add that Sahajananda was not contemporary but he established sect very much before. I am going to add several lines from Satyarth Prakash too. That disputed line is literally copied from this Gujarati article and have been translated. Now, if you have book and found the actual sentence which is different then we can add it as it is. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:36, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see why you might think it's appropriate to include this reference in the English article when it’s in the Gujarati article and why translating the quote from one language to another might not be OR. WP policy is clear here, and when the English source is present, the words you included between the quotes must match the English text. Satyarth Prakash is a primary source, so we can’t use that either. The only quote you could pull from this book is that he didn't accept Swaminarayan as God because he felt he deceived his followers. On page 144, the author quotes Dayananda, "In this same manner, all the opponents of the Vedas are clever in stripping others of their wealth. Such is the imposition of sects. The followers of the Swami Narayan religion illegally make money, practice frauds and tricks." Still, I can’t seem to find other secondary sources to corroborate the notability of this opinion and thus don't think it should be included in this article. I will now seek consensus from others. @Harshil169, Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil Shah, Gazal world, Apollo1203, and Treehugger8891: Moksha88 (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can only request you to look at and read Wikipedia's policies. It never says that you can't add something directly from the book. It just says that diaries, autobiagraphies and such books are primary sources and can't be used for notability. If you still can't believe then read Criticism of Islam. In the article, direct reference is given to the newspaper article for any columnist and according to your understanding, it is original research then it might have been removed or have been tagged. I already suggested two essays to read to differentiate between original research and primary sources. First read, understand and then cite. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked at that page, and there's a tag indicating, "This article needs editing for compliance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In particular, it has problems with This article consists primary of lists, quoting persons, who spoke against Islam, without providing further contexts and does not explain that exactly is critisized. Furthermore, many quotes may fail notability," so I'm still not understanding how Dayanand Saraswati's opinion meets notability. I am no longer refuting its inclusion on the basis of OR as translating the quote from Gujarati to English led to its deviance from the original English source. I invite the opinion of others to comment. @Harshil169, Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil Shah, Gazal world, Apollo1203, and Treehugger8891: Moksha88 (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the author of the secondary source cited seems to indicate that Dayanand Saraswati's views were fringe views, thus I would agree with Moksha88 that this point does indeed violate WP:Fringe and should be removed.Sacredsea (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I reviewed the quote Moksha88 previously emphasized and I think the author acknowledges the bias of Dayanand Saraswati. Including his opinion in this criticism is WP:UNDUE. I believe it would be best to remove this statement, as recommended by previous users in this section. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a fringe view and this verbiage doesn't merit inclusion in the article. Appears as though we have consensus on this issue. I am going to remove the discussed content from the article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

To reiterate the point Sacredsea mentioned - the secondary source author indicates that these are fringe views. I am removing this content per WP:Undue and WP:Fringe. Actionjackson09 (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Fringe views are generally related to history and science articles. They are not for someone's criticism of religious and political philosophy. If this is fringe view then report it to WP:FTN and then you will get to know what is FRINGE or what is not. Discuss issue here. I am pinging @DBigXray, Winged Blades of Goric, Kautilya3, and Ms Sarah Welch: to know whether this opinion violates NPOV or fringe. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Harshil ^{want to talk?want to talk? - it seems like you are ignoring the issue brought up by several users that the author of the secondary source has explicitly said that Dayanand's views are fringe and it is in violation of WP:Fringe. Not sure how to further impress this upon you. Actionjackson09 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)}

Sarcastic dig and criticism

@Harshil169:, how sarcastic dig by Morari Bapu qualify as serious criticism of Swaminarayan sect? Criticism is a scholarly study of a subject. Sarcastic dig is hardly qualify as criticism. -Nizil (talk) 05:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nizil Shah still it was criticism as the central figure of the sect was directly criticised and attacked. Also, in criticism of Islam, there’s mention of such jibes and one sarcastic book namely ‘Rangeela Rasool’.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:39, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, we should not add Kaajal Oza Vaidya in reference. She is not a scholar, but a popular columnist and novelist. Her works isn't mentioned as 'significant work' in any 'reference works' or in any books of 'history of literature'. --Gazal world (talk) 05:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169:, Attack is not criticism. Did he criticised any particular aspect of sect or philosophy? At most, I can see that he criticised the use of Nilkanth title. Btw I can not find Rangeela Rasool in Islam or Criticism of Islam.-Nizil (talk) 05:46, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah:, ohh I found it here. Now, it’s obvious that criticism of Islam and Muhammad are different and so much in detailed and hence different. Here, I’ve added in this section to avoid making new article on Criticisms of Sahjanand as an individual. Sahjanand is the central figure of Swaminarayan and hence, I’ve added it here. Also, @Gazal world: the page I’ve cited here also has commentaries from journalist Katherine Zoepf and Criticism of Islam also includes criticisms from several columnists and journalists. Kajal Oza Vaidhya showed her opinion and it will be not wrong to include it here if we follow same pattern as Wikipedia articles have for criticism of religion.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, Katherine Zoepf ! Atleast, she is an author of several 'scholarly' or 'historical' works. And Kajal Oza Vaidya ? Hope, you get the point. --Gazal world (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169:, Morari Bapu has not criticised Sahajanand. He took a dig at the use of Nilakanth title. Two are different things. And mocking the use of title is hardly a criticism of the sect.-Nizil (talk) 06:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah: In the same way, Dayananda Saraswati had also took a dig at Sahjanand. As he objected Sahjanand as presenting himself as Vishnu. Then whole article becomes reluctant here. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Gazal world: I got your point but still Wikipedia articles have opinions from authors and columnists who didn’t produce any scholary work yet. They are in even articles of criticism of religion. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You missed the point. Dayanand had criticised Sahajanad and Morari Bapu has not criticised Sahajanand. He took a dig at the use of Nilakanth title. Is this any kind of criticism of the sect? [Note: I think you want to say "redundant" in previous comment but instead wrote "reluctant". I get it.] -Nizil (talk) 06:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I got your point. But still it’s one type of objection. See the lead section of this article. You’ll find the criticism over use of word Prophet for Muhammad. Firstly, I’ve read all the articles related to criticism of religions and then I had created this one in the lines of it. Morari Bapu objected use of title and he had his own points. Devotees of sect got triggered which created a big controversy in Gujarat. So, in my opinion, this deserves a place. Obviously, I’ll improve it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Even if Morari Bapu objected use of the title, what was his point? What of his criticism? Dig/mocking is not a serious criticism. The controversy is not important.-Nizil (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nizil Shah, His point was title Nilkanth is for his sect or lord, not for some other sect as they used in 19th century. This is same as Jews criticise the prophecy and use of term prophet for Muhammad whose time was 7th century and they have an old faith. Same for Christianity and their obligation of use of term 'prophet' for Muhammad. That's the reason why it took place. If you think this is inappropriate then you can refer articles of criticism of another religion. And still not convinced then let's seek third opinion of person or removing those lines from paragraph. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:47, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Simply, Morari Bapu's point was about use of term Nilkanth by Swaminarayan sect. In fact, Swaminarayan sect uses term Nilkanth Varni. Bapu just mocked it by telling that the Nilkanth applies to a person who drank poison, not laddu (a sweet). So what was his serious criticism? Did he told not to use Nilkanth? No, he just mocked its use. My point is that there is no real criticism in whole issue. It was : a mocking by a person, the people of sect feel offended, and the person apologised. I believe the whole section is pointless. Pinging Ms Sarah Welch for third opinion.-Nizil (talk) 05:27, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nizil Shah:, refer to BBC source given in the article. Morari Bapu’s whole statement was “Abhisheka can be done only on Nilkanth, all other Nilkanths are fake. You’ve to drink poison to become Nilkanth but you can’t become Nilkanth by eating laddus.” This was serious comment but in sarcastic way on the central figure of sect. Article of BBC clarifies many doubts on how Morari Bapu attack someone. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is in poor shape. We should avoid OR and not extrapolate criticism (or sarcasm) of an individual or individuals to "criticism of a sect/tradition". Similarly, the criticism of a few sadhus or someone alleged to have committed a crime should not be extrapolated into criticism of the Swaminarayan sect. WP:BLP applies here too. A better article will avoid ad hominems, and focus on the criticism of the ideology, themes, beliefs etc of the sect/tradition/religious group. Even there, we must invest due care in reading multiple sources and confirming whether an allegation or opinion is "notable" (WP:Due) by being in multiple "independent" reliable sources, preferably high-quality sources. All criticism should be carefully attributed to the source, avoid using wikipedia voice or universalizing. Mythology-based sarcastic comments/etc based on an interview is not an appropriate source/content and weakens this article. See WP:WWIN. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

How has he taken a dig? He was stating the truth that Mahadev is Nilkanth? Correct your facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciho (talk • contribs) 15:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. Doesn't matter whether it is dig/praise/reality, it is unencyclopedic and not notable. When someone alleges one must "drink poison to become Nilkanth", this is their opinion. It is from mythology, about mythical/symbolic poison (of unknown composition) just like the mythical/symbolic amrit (also of unknown composition). We do not include every opinion voiced in newspaper or other media in wikipedia articles. It must be notable and of encyclopedic value. Please see WP:WWIN and other content guidelines. A summary of scholarly criticism of this sect would be most welcome. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with @Ms Sarah Welch:. Outside of the references he has cited, I cannot find other secondary sources which support the notability of these criticisms. Moksha88 (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

But Ms Sarah Welch, here scholary criticism is not even acceptable as you can find in discussions of moksha and apollo. I cannot cite Dayananda's criticism because it's written by him in his work Satyarth Prakash. Also, I can't add criticism of Mahatma Gandhi directly from his own book because website of BAPS cult is saying something other for Mahatma. And his criticism is not even notable. Okay, I'm blanking the page in 2 days and will request deletion. Many people don't want to tolerate criticism of their swami.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I have only used scholarly references that have been produced by reliable publishing houses; this has been the basis of my edits or corrections to ensure false claims, which are not supported by secondary sources, do not jeopardize the integrity of Wikipedia. My comment here are precisely what Ms Sarah Welch has mentioned. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I am removing Criticism by Morari Bapu section as per third opinion. Thank you Ms Sarah Welch for your time and comment. [Note: Doesn't matter whether it is dig/praise/reality, it is unencyclopedic and not notable... A summary of scholarly criticism of this sect would be most welcome.] @Harshil169:, hope it clarifies. I believe that the issue regarding Morari Bapu comment is now settled. Other discussion can be carried on. -Nizil (talk) 05:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Request Exact Quotes - Gujarati and Hindi

Harshil169 Please provide the exact quotes and translations used from the 2 Gujarati sources used and 1 Hindi source used on this page. Apollo1203 (talk) 02:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

• User:Harshil169, the user was trying to ping you. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo1203 This demand is pathetic. I can't provide translations of three articles on the Wikipedia. Just use Google translate and do so. I didn't use any type of the quote or comment from those articles. Google translation is there, use it. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:50, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Let’s focus on improving the content. We are not as well versed in Gujarati, and I’d trust your translation abilities over a Google algorithm. Can you please provide the relevant quotations from the article with their English translations as per WP:NOENG? Moksha88 (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't use any quotation from non-English source. Don't create dispute of each topic by topic after. First resolve one thing. Don't attack from four sides.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: The original source is in Gujarati and/or Hindi, therefore, it was taken from non-English source. It would be helpful to see which quote is the basis of the claim you are making from the articles of another language. Also, there are many pending requests and comments on the page that have still not been addressed. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi on Swaminarayan Sampraday

The section dedicated to Gandhi's criticism of the Swaminarayan sect has been removed for the following reasons:
1. The text is in violation of WP:RPWP:RS, as the text is purely from a primary source. Additionally, it violates WP:NPOV as wording is biased as the source itself seems biased.
2. We can also turn to the Swaminarayan page. Here it clearly states an alternative view of Gandhi's: "the work accomplished by Swaminarayan in Gujarat could not and would never have been achieved by the law.” (https://www.baps.org/About-BAPS/TheFounder%E2%80%93BhagwanSwaminarayan/IntheirEyes%E2%80%A6.aspx). Scholars note close parallels between Gandhi's work and Swaminarayan's work related to non-violence, truth-telling, hygiene, temperance, and the uplift of masses. (Brady Williams, Raymond (2001). An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism. Cambridge University Press. p. 173. ISBN 9780521654227.) Commenting on Gandhi's social work, N.A. Toothi "most of his thought, activities and even methods of most of the institutions which he has been building up and serving, have the flavor of Swaminarayanism, more than that of any other sect of Hindu Dharma." He however did not feel that Swaminarayan's values aligned perfectly with his interpretation of Vaishnavism. (Takashi Shinoda (2002). The other Gujarat. Popular Prakashan. p. 9. ISBN 978-81-7154-874-3. Retrieved 27 June 2009) and (Hardiman, David (1988). "Class Base of Swaminarayan Sect". Economic and Political Weekly. 23 (37): 1907–1912. JSTOR 4379024).
If anyone feels against this, please discuss and we can come to a consensus on the topic.
Apollo1203 (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo1203, How pathetic you are talking here? Mahatma Gandhi said this in his book and you are referring to the sources provided by Swaminarayan sect? You can't remove the content whatever you like. This quotation is directly taken from Mahatma Gandhi's work. So, go and verify it rather than depending on some sect's website, otherwise, you'll be blocked for removing content. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Harshil169 - I have cited Williams, Toothi, Shinoda, and Hardiman regarding Gandhi's views as well. Whom are not part of the sect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo1203 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo1203, Verify this text in the work of Mahatma Gandhi. If it is wrong then I will remove it. If you will revert one more time then you maybe blocked from Wikipedia for edit war.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I can do research into it. Also, I believe it should be a general consensus of what should remain or removed, it is not your page Harshil169 or your ultimate decision of what should remain or not. I would like to invite the others to comment on this topic as well. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo1203 You can't remove the content without gaining consensus. Here, link to direct primary source is given, don't believe in source provided by some sect. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears quite clear that scholars have also mentioned Gandhi's viewpoint on Swaminarayan. I do not deny that there is mention that Gandhi believed Swaminarayan's values did not align with his interpretation of Vaishnavism. I invite others to also comment and review the work on Gandhi and its notability for this page. Based on group consensus, we can determine if it should be removed or kept. Apollo1203 (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Please remove. I have not seen other sources supporting the inclusion of its notability. Moksha88 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

If you have not seen then it doesn't mean that it should not be there on Wikipedia. Person who championed indian freedom struggle is not notable then who is notable? Swami Dayananda Saraswati is not notable. So, I have to blank the page, right? -_ Harshil ^{want to talk?} 02:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Anything that is encompassed by WP:WWIN, specifically WP:NOTOPINION, WP:NOTSCANDAL, should be removed from this page as outlined above by Ms Sarah Welch. This applies to Dayanand Saraswati, Gandhi, and sexual abuse allegations. Moksha88 (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: Where did I add my personal comments about Sahjanand? I added comments of Dayananda, Gandhi and both have been mentioned in multiple resources including William’s book. WP:NOTOPINION is not applicable here as none of these are my comments. NotOpinion means I can’t criticise Sahjanand by my own stand. Read Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Christianity, Criticism of Jainism, Criticism of Muhammad and Criticism of Jesus before commenting how criticism of religion should be written. For example, read how they used references of Voltaire directly from his work. Same I did with Dayananda and Gandhi. And as you said, comments of Dayananda, Gandhi and Sadhus should be removed then what should be here? Now, just write what should be here in criticism of Swaminarayan sect? No content? Blanking? I’m stopping discussion here as it’s not violation of any policy to write opinion of others for particular sect. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I think the information you have populated as criticism has been based on sources which do not stand as sufficient material for the criticism. I believe all the users: Moksha88, Treehugger8891, Nizil Shah, Ms Sarah Welch have expressed similar sentiments that the material on this page needs improvement based on sources which are not concrete. It seems as if you are going against the consensus and not allowing those involved in this page to move this page forward. Additionally, you are arguing and criticizing all that are involved in the editing, leading you to initiate a sockpuppet investigation. These actions all seem unwarranted. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

If someone is trying to reach on consensus then I’m here. I didn’t stop anyone to remove criticism of Morari Bapu as consensus is reached. Also, no experienced editors, including Nizil and Sara, had told that criticism of Gandhi and Dayananda are not reliable. So, don’t bring them in between here. They expressed their opinion for different topic, don’t use their name to make your arguments strong. I’m talking about policies here, stay on point and I opened SPI against only those who are likely to be connected, not against everyone. This is how Sockpuppet works and I opened investigation. If you didn’t have more than one account and not abusive use then you’ve to no worry for it; it’ll be identified. If it’ll be opened then it means admin is also suspected on activity of accounts. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: As I stated before, I have not shared my username/IP address/created duplicate account. I am just attempting to ensure the integrity of Wikipedia is upheld.Apollo1203 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Apollo1203: Per WP:PRIMARY, it is okay to quote exact from a primary source (preferably from a published paper version, avoid websites). However, it must not be cherrypicked, be complete, and mention the context/relevant conditions disclosed in the sources. Adding something from Gandhi would, therefore, be okay. Your point and comments from Williams, Toothi, Shinoda, and Hardiman regarding Gandhi's views should also be added, to give a balanced (NPOV) picture. Encyclopedic coverage of criticism does not mean a list of criticism, it also includes disagreements, responses and clarifications about the criticism. Harshil169: please dial down the rhetoric a bit, as calling someone "pathetic" etc is neither kind and respectful nor the best way to collaborate and develop a consensus.

Here is what I would urge you two to consider adding from the Gandhi's comments, along with sources Apollo1023 is suggesting, "In a series of letters to his relative Maganlal Gandhi, he discussed ethics according to Hindu texts and mentions those he believed to be of Swaminaraya.Source pp. 27–35 In a letter in July 1918, Gandhi questioned the interpretations and teachings of love and absolute ahimsa (non-violence) ethics by Swaminarayan and Vallabhacharya. According to Gandhi, it robbed us of our manliless; they made the people incapable of self-defence. [...] Do not mix up the Vaishnava tradition with the teaching of Vallabh and Swaminarayana. Vaishnavism is an age-old truth. I have come to see, what I did not so clearly before, that there is non¬violence in violence. This is the big change which has come about. I had not fully realized the duty of restraining a drunkard from doing evil, of killing a dog in agony or one infected with rabies. In all these instances, violence is in fact non-violence."Source pp. 32–33

There is a bit more you can add from Gandhi source, if you wish. But, be careful and complete per our WP:RS guidelines for primary sources. Summarize in a way that informs, plus does not misinform the reader. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Thanks for giving third opinion. Mahatma Gandhi appreciated him in complete different context; not in this one letter. And I didn’t find Mahatma Gandhi’s appraisal in his primary source expect site of BAPS. Also, I’ve read Criticism of religion including Criticism of Islam, Criticism if Christianity and in which no one has added the justification from the side of religion, Islam and Christianity then how it will be fair to add the criticism of the accused in the subpov article of Swaminarayan when things like praise, his good efforts already been included in the article related to him. In addition, WP:Criticism essay also stated that criticism section and/or article is for negative viewpoints about religion. Positive viewpoints are already been given in other articles without any criticism. Will this be fair practice?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:Criticism essay does emphasize, "a fair description of the topic" and "best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section". This can accomplished in this article by including criticism with context, and any responses / defenses / apologetics / clarifications about that criticism or opposed to that criticism, again with context, all from good quality reliable sources. Opposing criticism and apologetics are not the same thing as praise. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with Ms Sarah Welch about the best practice of contextualizing criticism to achieve WP:NPOV. I have used the text that Ms Sarah Welch has suggested and then done some more research to create what I hope is a nuanced and well-researched account of Gandhi’s evolving criticism of the Swaminarayan sect over time. According to WP:BB, I am posting this version, but also noting my absolute openness to revert it back or delete the section altogether if after discussing the pros and cons on the talk page that is the consensus that emerges. I found the talk page contributions very interesting and I commend everyone for doing the hard work it takes to improve this article.Sacredsea (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You cited criticism by Mahatma Gandhi from his work and complemented it with another source. Instead of focusing what Gandhi had said on Sahajananda, you quoted historian's opinion by equating it with Sahajananda's work which has nothing to do with his criticism and apology. First, build consensus and then replace texts. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The contribution I made on Gandhi's Criticism was reverted by Harshil169 before anyone else could get a chance to comment on it reach consensus. I can understand that Harshil169 seems very passionate about this subject, but that is not an excuse for tendentious editing WP:TE. So I would request Harshil169 to revert his own reversion, allow my good faith edits to go back up at least until others get a chance to look at it and discuss it on the talk page, to see if we can arrive at some consensus on this point. If consensus cannot be reached, then we can go back to the original. Until then, my good faith edits can be seen at in my sandbox - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sacredsea/sandbox. and I would invite others to discuss. Regarding Harshil169's talk page post here, it is clear that he is ignoring the emerging consensus about wikipedia guidelines on WP:NPOV for criticism pages. The material I have posted on Gandhi examines his criticism, looks at the context of that criticism, and then looks at how that same topic of criticism by Gandhi has changed over time. As Ms Sarah Welch has already explained that is not praise, it is "including criticism with context, and any responses / defenses / apologetics / clarifications about that criticism or opposed to that criticism, again with context, all from good quality reliable sources". Take a look at it again, and I think it would be clear that is exactly what I have done. It gives a balanced and well-support picture of that criticism in line with WP:NPOV.

Also, Harshil169's statement "Instead of focusing what Gandhi had said on Sahajananda, you quoted historian's opinion by equating it with Sahajananda's work which has nothing to do with his criticism and apology." is not clear to me, and I would appreciate it if he could clarify his point in more detail. Sacredsea (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sacredsea Please understand that this dispute is going on for the content which was originally there. We were involved in building consensus and you had removed the content which was existing. Don't do that when content is already in dispute. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I thought that the consensus was moving towards another approach, which I provided, but we can have everyone look at my sandbox and the current version and share their thoughts. Sacredsea (talk) 18:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Sacredsea: your sandbox version with cited sources is constructive and in the right direction. Trim the second last para in particular, don't use words such as "Eminent" (WP:Peacock) as in the last para, remove editorializing, avoid JBE Online books type sources given the publisher's unknown peer-review process, and subtitle that section simply as "Mahatma Gandhi" instead of "Criticism by Mahatma Gandhi". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I have made the changes that were suggested. I look forward to seeing what everyone thinks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sacredsea/sandbox Sacredsea (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The edits made by Sacredsea on their sandbox page are comprehensive and are appropriate for this topic. My opinion is that they be used. Tale.Spin (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing the version in the sandbox, I believe it is a better version for this article. Apollo1203 (talk) 00:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I too looked at this version and made two minor edits (italicizing Ashram Bhajanavali as it's a book and making Sociologist lowercase). Otherwise, I agree with the reasoning and feel it reflects the explanation of WP:NPOV outlined by Ms Sarah Welch. Moksha88 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their constructive suggestions. I believe that consensus has been reached, so I will substitute the Mahatma Gandhi section on the current page with the version in my sandbox. I believe this issue has been resolved, and we can focus on other pending aspects for further discussion.Sacredsea (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Reference #6 [WP:NPOV]

In verifying this statement, “Swaminarayan was also criticized by his contemporaries because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world by being a Sannyasi,” I found this statement in Raymond Williams’s An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism, “'Followers believe that he was unaffected by any of these emotions or feelings. Swaminarayan was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world” (81). I notice you are now referencing a Gujarati source. Can you please provide us an English translation of the reference and an explanation for why you changed the reference?

Also, this excerpt is taken out of context from William's book [WP:NPOV]. This section is part of a larger discussion of Swaminarayan’s teachings where God assumes a human body and human characteristics to accept the devotion of his followers. This is again addressed in this book, “There are many stories in which he received gifts or ate very fine food, not because he wanted them, but to satisfy the devotional needs of his followers” (19). Moksha88 (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I forgot to ping you on this question yesterday. Please respond at your convenience. Thank you. Moksha88 (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I now see this statement is attributed to a third reference, Kirin Narayan’s book. As I mentioned before, this quote is taken verbatim from Raymond Williams’s book and doesn’t reflect the actual argument. Can you explain why you cited Kirin Narayan’s text, including the relevant excerpts which corroborate this detail? I have therefore corrected the reference and edited this statement to reflect WP:NPOV and invite @Ms Sarah Welch: to evaluate. Moksha88 (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: I see you reverted my edits without clarifying why you agreed with using the original reference you cited. What Raymond Williams refers to on page 81 is more fully explained on page 19, so I'm curious to know why you removed the material I had initially incorporated when excluding it certainly constitutes WP:UNDUE and therefore a violation of WP:NPOV. Moksha88 (talk) 05:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: Refer that statement in good article of Swaminarayan. It can be found here. There's no such need to include the justification from all side. As you can see, there're only 2 lines reagarding this. One is based on criticism and one is on justification. Same I did here. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Thank you for showing me this example. I think 'claimed' is not a neutral word as per WP:NPOV, "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word claim, as in "Jim claimed he paid for the sandwich", could imply a lack of credibility. Using this or other expressions of doubt may make an article appear to promote one position over another. Try to state the facts more simply without using such loaded words; for example, "Jim said that he paid for the sandwich"." I wonder if we can use 'responded' or 'explained' here. Moksha88 (talk) 05:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: That’s wrong example because it’s more like presenting fact. If Jim had no money and he ate sandwich for free then it should be taken. Now differentiate between two:- “Jim had no money but he ate sandwich and said that it’s his fundamental right.” and “Jim had no money but he ate sandwich but he claimed that it’s his fundamental right.” Now, first sentence represents simple fact while second is neutral as people can agree with it or disagree as per their ideology. That’s how word ‘claimed’ is used here. Sahajananda claimed something which was not acceptable in contemporary society but it can ve acceptable to their followers. Waiting for comments of Ms Sarah Welch for this issue. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with @Harshil169:’s logic. I agree with Moksha88 and their citation of Wikipedia guidelines regarding and NPOV which they have actually quoted, and thus I feel that the word respond is more neutral in such situations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacredsea (talk • contribs) 18:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Raymond Williams' book is a reliable source. On page 89, it does state, "Sahajanand was criticized because he received large gifts from his followers and dressed and traveled as a Maharaja even though he had taken the vows of renunciation of the world". Either this exact quote with in-text attribution (see WP:Plag on how to do this), or a reworded version is relevant and most welcome in the article. His response, and why he believed it was good, that follows in the Williams source must also be briefly summarized in this article, for NPOV. Please keep the focus on the Swaminarayan sect, rather than one individual. On large gifts, see pages 58-59, 110-111, 142-144, etc in the Williams source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Thank you for the comments. I will review the pages you suggested and draft a response in my sandbox, like Sacredsea, so others may review. Moksha88 (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's my sandbox version: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moksha88/sandbox. I didn't get a chance to review the pages suggested by Ms Sarah Welch above so this draft is still preliminary. Moksha88 (talk) 15:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sacredsea and Harshil169: please read Moksha88's draft and the sources cited, then add/revise/improve it. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have read Williams’ chapter on this point, and the point about criticism of accepting gifts seems like a minor point, since he hasn’t made it explicit who is criticizing him, how wide-spread the criticism was, or anything of the sort. It is almost like an aside. Moreover, Williams’ explanation of Swaminarayan’s “response” to this criticism cites a paragraph in the Vachanamrut, which I also read. But it is clear that Williams has taken this paragraph completely out of context – the quote he cites is not a response to any criticism. So, my sense is that although Williams is a reliable source, including this point in the article may be giving it undue weight, as I could not find this criticism in other scholarly sources. But, still, if all the editors feel it should be included, I edited the sandbox text to provide the reader with more context using what Williams explains in his book immediately prior to the mention of criticism. That is, one has to explain why Swaminarayan is getting gifts to understand what the criticism actually is, otherwise the reader is left to make their own (likely erroneous) assumptions.Sacredsea (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Swaminarayan's Views on the Caste System

In referencing Swaminarayan’s view of the caste system from the book Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, Identity (Williams, Trivedi), it doesn’t adhere to WP:NPOV. The sentence cited in this article is part of a broader discussion (which is disregarded) on how Swaminarayan opposed the caste system and this claim can be considered cherrypicked. See below for excerpts from the same book (Swaminarayan Hinduism: Tradition, Adaptation, Identity); if the group agrees, can it please be removed?

• Swaminarayan is credited for advocating purity of conduct and high standards of morality during an era of moral degradation and irregularities in practice of faith (page 96-97). It was because of Swaminarayan’s teachings that ‘many lower strata components embraced the Swaminarayan sect.’ The lower strata were drawn to the Swaminarayan sect because Swaminarayan, himself, ignored the differences in caste (pg 105).
  
• The claim “Swaminarayan is also being criticised for being supportive of the caste system" can be supported by directly quoting a verse from the Shikshapatri, however, scholars argue this was a method of Swaminarayan’s reform efforts. By not completely negating the ‘norms’ of the era, Swaminarayan was attempting to subtly subvert. It is because of Swaminarayan’s incremental and subtle approach that the sect survived and transformed into a national form focused on inclusiveness (page 107).
  
• If one analyzes the crux of Swaminarayan’s teachings, it is clear that caste plays no role in the doctrine. He taught that the true self is the atma, the soul, which is distinct from the physical body, and thus, castes are false and irrelevant (page 115).
• During Swaminarayan's era, various religious groups had ‘caste-based memberships’ however, Swaminarayan was known for welcoming people of all castes. In 1823, a British official wrote in the Asiatic Journal their observation of various castes and classes being followers of Swaminarayan (page 117).
  
• Additionally, Bishop Heber's colonial informant stateed that Swaminarayan 'destroyed the yoke of caste' (page 119).
  

The above examples and excerpts clearly show a contradiction to what is written in this article and negates the claim that Swaminarayan supported the caste system. I invite all to review the excerpts posted and we can reach a consensus on improving this article to uphold Wikipedia's core pillars.
Apollo1203 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Read WP:Criticism and read in table that how criticism of religion is made. It’s created by ‘Criticisms’ not by praise. What you’ve mentioned deserves place in article related to Sahjanand and his spiritual tradition which is primary viewpoint. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The points I have made are not praise but factual evidence from an academic source, the same source that was cherrypicked to make a claim against Swaminarayan as supporting caste. I will let everyone else weigh in on this topic. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you care to read essay which I cited? It’s clearly written that criticism sections are for negative viewpoints. If you want to add this then you can add it in articles related to Sahajananda and his sect, not in criticism of his sect. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: Yes, I did review the essay, thank you for sharing it with me. Based on my review of the essay I have a few observations for the group to consider. Please reference the WP:Criticism essay in parallel with the points below:

• As you are the original creator of this article, it is apparent you took the approach of ‘Criticism of…’ when creating this article. The description for this type of page begins with ‘This approach is generally discouraged…” Knowing this, it seemed like you concluded this was the best approach to create this article despite it not being the ‘best’ choice.
• Next, the criticism essay begins by saying that articles should contain positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources and that positive and negative should be presented to give balance. When we analyze this particular article against this statement, this article has been ‘censored’ in an attempt to exclude positive viewpoints. Regarding the sources, we have had numerous discussions on the talk page disputing the validity of some of the sources being used.
• Furthermore, the criticism essay mentions that the policy WP:BALASPS states that criticism of a subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of criticism in a reliable sources on the subject. If we use the caste example, the source that is being used (Williams and Trivedi) is not about Swaminarayan’s support of the caste system, in fact, it is the complete opposite. For a deeper understanding of this, please read chapter 5 and 6 from Williams and Trivedi book. Therefore, it is safe to say this article is also in violation of WP:BALASPS
• Finally, the essay you shared states that an article dedicated to negative criticism is usually discouraged due to violation of NPOV.

After reviewing the various points, it appears that this article does not meet many standards or guidelines that have been described in the essay you shared with me. I suggest reviewing the criticism essay you have shared as it will provide you with guiding principles on creating a criticism article/section in the future.Apollo1203 (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

• Few points you’ve missed: Criticism section is for philosophy and religion.
• The inclusivity of all things were necessary for articles of BLP, not for religion.
• It’s not written that criticism article (don’t focus on everything, focus on article and section) should include all aspects including justification.
• Positive things are for Swaminarayan (spiritual tradition). You can add there; it deserves place there and it’s not prohibitive by policy.
• You’re new to Wikipedia, take some time to make yourself familiar about policy regarding how articles are created. Let’s wait what others say about this but this is not for articles of criticism, that’s sure. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: You have noted a few bullet points that contradict what @Ms Sarah Welch: has stated in the Gandhi section of the talk page. Her points align with what I was mentioning above that this section/claim is bias towards the negative and not inclusive of all material. As stated by Ms Sarah Welch: “[Fair description] can [be] accomplished in this article by including criticism with context, and any responses / defenses / apologetics / clarifications about that criticism or opposed to that criticism, again with context, all from good quality reliable sources. Opposing criticism and apologetics are not the same thing as praise” Based on her comments, I have added to the caste criticism to show all sides of this claim and not just the cherrypicked quote which was used earlier. Others who may have an opinion on this matter can also weigh-in.Apollo1203 (talk) 06:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: That's for what consensus and third opinion is. Also, don't change context of the criticism. Page number 106 is for another matter and page number 117 is for different matter and why did you remove the quote stated by Sahajananda as reference without gaining consensus and seeking third opinion? It was stated by him and it was criticised. Read WP:NOTOR before telling simple addition as original research.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 07:34, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: If you thoroughly look through chapter 5 and 6 from Swaminarayan Hinduism book (Williams, Trivedi), you will see that both chapters are dedicated to Swaminarayan’s ideology and stance on caste. You are saying don’t cite page 106, but the exact quote on page 106 is, “In the context of criticism is the view that Swaminarayan was supportive of the varna and caste identity…” (which you have also used in your original writing). Please explain how page 106 is not relevant? Furthermore, page 117 states exactly what is the opposite of what is stated on page 106, which provides NPOV. Page 117 states that British officials noted that Swaminarayan was not supportive of the caste system. In my edits, the direct quote from Swaminarayan, which is taken from the Shikshapatri, was not removed but simply summarized in the sentence for better readability. I suggest thoroughly reading chapters 5 and 6 prior to writing or picking statements from them to further an argument as that is not best practice. I will wait for others to chime in and support my edit before reverting. I believe my edit displayed the negative and positive which follows Wikipedia policy of writing a criticism page. Apollo1203 (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Apollo1203’s explanations about the best practices regarding criticism page which have been corroborated by Ms Sarah Welch. Moreover, it is clear to me that@Harshil169 is absolutely wrong in the points that he makes about criticism sections not having to abide by WP:NPOV. If further guidance is required, please see also WP: POVFORK, which again clearly states that any criticism pages must consider both merits and faults and cannot be entirely negative. I would like to examine Apollo 1203’s edits to provide some feedback, however they have been reverted by @Harshil169. He has reverted my good-faith edits, and it seems he is reverted Apollo1203’s as well. I would suggest to Apollo1203 to post their version onto their sandbox and put a link on the talk page so we can develop some consensus and move forward.Sacredsea (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

The points made by @Apollo1203: seem to be sensible. I don't see how @Harshil169:'s references to Wikipedia policy on are applicable to this case. So this criticism should be removed. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: you reverted Apollo1203's edits, but if you look at the book, the chapter is written by Vibhuti Parikh, not Raymond Williams. Should we replace Williams with Parikh? Please be more careful with reverting others' good faith edits [WP:NOR]. It appears you disagree with all of us about how NPOV should appear in a criticism article such as this one, which is what consensus is for, but it's even more difficult when you are not looking at these secondary sources closely. I think a sandbox version would be helpful for us all to review and comment @Apollo1203:. Moksha88 (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: I have placed my edits regarding Swaminarayan and the caste system in my sandbox here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apollo1203/sandbox?section=1. I hope everyone has a chance to review and provide feedback. Apollo1203 (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

One of the early criticisms of the Swaminarayan community was based on the issue of caste practices. Apollo1203 has proposed some text in his sandbox which starts off saying “Swaminarayan has been criticized for being supportive of the caste system”.

However, after reading chapters 5 and 6 of the Swaminarayan Hinduism book from Oxford University Press, it is clear that the early criticism against the Swaminarayan community was not because Swaminarayan was supportive of the caste system, but because Swaminarayan opposed it. The scholars who have written Ch.5 and Ch.6 have convincingly argued this with multiple references from multiple angles. In fact, they argue that some of the accommodations that Swaminarayan appears to make with regard to caste practices are to forestall the violent criticism that he faced due to his opposition to caste discrimination. I think this important aspect of early criticism of the Swaminarayan community may have been misunderstood in this article, and I have added a revised text in Apollo1203’s sandbox correcting that. The point about Swaminarayan being supportive of the caste system is a modern criticism coming from a modern scholar whose perspective is opposed by other modern scholars. I have also tried to incorporate this in my revised text. I have also tried to incorporate some of Apollo1203’s text into the revised text I have proposed. After reading Ch5 and Ch6, I have also included some of the context they have provided on Swaminarayan’s approach to caste in order to make this section balanced. It would be great if others can take a look and share their thoughts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apollo1203/sandbox?section=1Sacredsea (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

After reviewing Sacredsea's analysis and writing, I believe the edited version is best fit for the page. The correct perspective from the Chapter 5 and 6 have been brought out through the edited version. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Sacredsea's revision is much more aligned with NPOV, and I will cross reference with Raymond Williams's earlier book tomorrow to see if there is any criticism present in this book. Moksha88 (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits and review Sacredsea and Moksha88. I've edited the article to reflect the new version and added a subsectionApollo1203 (talk) 10:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I revised the segment on Swaminarayan and caste within the early criticism section according to the suggestions of Ms Sarah Welch, particularly 1)starting the section with the relevant criticism and 2)giving an expanded version of the criticism with more details. Ms Sarah Welch states that the apologetics and explanations should come after this. It makes sense that the page, being about criticism, should have stated criticism come first and any explanations or contexts required to understand the criticism should come after that. However, according to Wikipedia’s definition of apologetics, I don’t see any apologetics in my writeup of the caste section or the Gandhi section. There is disagreement amongst scholars writing in peer-reviewed sources, which I have clearly stated. Moreover, various scholars have provided context of criticisms based on historical analysis, which I think is different from apologetics - (the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines). Not that I have anything against apologetics, but I just wanted to note that the term may not apply here.As I have mentioned in my earlier post, with regard to caste, there are widely prevalent criticisms in the early years against Swaminarayan’s rejection of caste discrimination. In modern times, Haridman seems to criticize Swaminarayan as supportive of caste discrimination based on some public writings of his, but the bulk of scholarly sources appears to reject Hardiman’s view as superficial. So, while it seems to me Hardiman’s may be a fringe view, at least in the current writeup, I have noted Hardiman’s view along with ample scholarly opposition to his view.Finally, I have added my revised text 2 in Apollo1203’s sandbox, but since the earlier revised text has been incorporated into the article, I’m going to WP:BB and change the article with this revised text 2 and await editors’ comments. However, if anyone objects, and wants to revert the text and comment on the revised text 2 from the sandbox, I’m fine with that as well.Sacredsea (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Can anyone access the research paper described over this piece.

Also see Hardiman, David (1988). "Class Base of Swaminarayan Sect". Economic and Political Weekly. 23 (37): 1907–1912. ISSN 0012-9976.

There's a hell lot of criticism, per my initial crawls of relevant journals and all that. ∯WBG^converse 06:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I took a quick look. I can likely get it by asking my librarian, but then Mehta's Arthat article is barely cited (Hardiman does, on Google scholar). Unlikely to be mainstream scholarship. More criticism from sources such as Hardiman should be stated upfront in each section, and any apologetics thereafter should be summarized. Instead of a few words or a short clip of criticism, the "criticism" should be expanded, better explained with more details, if and where available in peer-reviewed sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: The criticism summary in the recently revised caste-related section neither properly reflects Williams/Hardiman/etc, nor does it fairly attribute the summarized views to the authors. I will bandage it by this weekend, or sooner. If you have time, please check and revise further. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch and Winged Blades of Godric: Makarand Mehta is well respected historian of Gujarat and is mainstream scholar IMO. See Arhat article must be important even if not cited much. I have used his works in citations and they were of good quality.-Nizil (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Nizil: Mehta is cited by Hardiman, and that seconds what you are saying. The critical views in the Hardiman source mentioned by WBG above and one we have cited, reflect Mehta. I have no objections to Mehta (or anyone else) but would prefer a secondary source over a primary source, and something from a peer-reviewed publication. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Dalit Temple Entry Movements in Maharashtra and Gujarat 1930-48 by Mehta (p.9, p.12 onwards) has information on Dalit Temple Entry issue. It may be relevant in Caste section. -Nizil (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps Sacredsea, you or someone can summarize/cite p.9 onwards. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch, Winged Blades of Godric, Nizil Shah, Sacredsea, and Apollo1203: On 10/18, Ms Sarah Welch outlined, "Try to draft an NPOV summary that covers that criticism from all sides. The draft can be on this talk page or your sandbox." We ought to make these suggestions in a draft form before making edits on the page to avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication. As such, I have reverted all good faith edits back to the 10/17 version. Below are the sandboxes in which we can make these suggestions.

Criticism on gifts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moksha88/sandbox

Criticism on caste system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apollo1203/sandbox

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha88 (talk • contribs)

Moksha88: please sign your comments. Yes, I would have preferred the sandbox approach, but much editorial water has flowed over that sandbox. What we have now reflects a collaborative improvement of some sections. No need for the deep revert. Let us use the current version, in this article or sandbox, then move this forward. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion from the 'Can anyone' sub-heading to this section as the discussion is related to caste. As previously done, by the suggestion of Ms Sarah Welch, we should edit this section in the sandbox till a consensus is reach. There are still open discussion items that have not been resolved. I've copied the current version in my sandbox and I believe we should all direct ourselves there to make edits. The original version that I had written, as well as the two iterations by Sacredsea are also present there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apollo1203/sandbox#Early_Criticism_-_Swaminarayan_and_CasteApollo1203 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Sexual abuse allegations

@Harshil169:In reviewing Pramukh Swami Maharaj’s article history, these allegations were posted and subsequently removed in October 2014 on the basis of WP:NOTGOSSIP. I therefore think these allegations should be excluded based on WP:NOTSCANDAL which @Ms Sarah Welch: referenced above in clarifying the exclusion of the Morari Bapu claims. Moksha88 (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: Can you focus on one issue at one moment? It's difficult for any person to address four issues at same time. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Moksha88: I agree. I can't see how these allegations meet the four criteria of notability stated in WP:EVENTCRITERIA, especially since it looks like the only articles referenced are from 2013 when these allegations arose. I vote to remove.Apollo1203 (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThaNDNman224 please don't make changes without first reaching consensus. Moksha88 (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169 please stop reverting edits that are being made in good faith in maintaining NPOV for a criticism article. As you said, let's try to reach consensus. There is no reason for edit warring. Moksha88 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

:@Harshil169 please stop reverting edits that are being made in good faith in maintaining NPOV for a criticism article. As you said, let's try to reach consensus. There is no reason for edit warring. Moksha88 (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

My apologies @Moksha88:, reading the prior history here as well as the reasons for removal I believe it's fully in line with the policies, specifically WP:BLP. Please go see the talk page on the Pramukh Swami Maharaj wiki page where this was previously discussed and removed. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that on the basis of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:EVENTCRITERIA, this should be removed.Sacredsea (talk) 19:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@ThaNDNman224 no worries. I just don't want this editing process to become uncivil. @Harshil169: is making a lot of reverts, and I don't want him to feel frustrated. Moksha88 (talk) 02:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

To that effect, consensus has been reached. I will remove the final reference to these allegations. Thank you all for commenting. Moksha88 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding my two cents - I agree that the verbiage related to the allegations should be removed on the basis of WP:NOTGOSSIP and WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Actionjackson09 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The way

you folks are moving about; the page will either get sysop-protected or you two, blocked for slow-edit-warring. Please follow dispute resolution ladder. I will be taking a detailed look, soon enough .... ∯WBG^converse 09:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: thank you for your guidance. Do you prefer we wait for your review of the situation or proceed to a noticeboard? Moksha88 (talk) 21:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I concur with WBG. You all, including Harshil169, are making a few good points but a lot of claims/accusations/posturing. Please welcome the good points on relevant criticism, read the peer-reviewed sources and then try to draft an NPOV summary that covers that criticism from all sides. The draft can be on this talk page or your sandbox. For example, the allegations and criticism about caste discrimination and related practices within the Swaminarayan sect are relevant and supported in RS such as Williams. It should be included in this article. Williams includes the scholarly response in the pages right after the criticism, and a more comprehensive discussion in chapter 6 on this topic (see). Once you have posted a carefully drafted short summary section based on these relevant sections in the peer-reviewed sources, discuss that summary on this talk page. Hopefully, you will reach a consensus. If not, after a reasonable effort, then you can proceed to WP:DR as WBG suggests. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been attempting the approach suggested by Ms Sarah Welch (see the Gandhi section). If what I have written has come across as accusations or posturing, I am sorry, that was not my intent. As for the suggestion to similarly improve the caste discrimination criticism, I have added some revised text to Apollo1203’s sandbox for everyone’s comments and a section on the talk page above explaining it. Sacredsea (talk) 18:06, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

That section should start with the criticism, similar in style to the older versions of this article:

The Swaminarayan sect and Sahajanand have been criticized for being supportive of the caste system, states Williams.[5]:106 This criticism is based on the following statement attributed to Sahajanand, "None shall receive food and water, which are unacceptable at the hands of some people under scruples of caste system, may the same happen to the sanctified portions of the Shri Krishna, except at Jagannath Puri."[6][7]

The explanations and apologetics in your draft should come after this. Please consider re-arranging. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My response is above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Swaminarayan_sect#Swaminarayan's_Views_on_the_Caste_SystemSacredsea (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Modern Criticism - Grandiose Temples

I think the criticism regarding 'grandiose temples' is not notable enough to merit a place in this article. It is not validated as a criticism just because 'some Hindus' hold this belief/opinion (WP:NOTOPINION) as Sarah Welch has pointed out earlier. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Apollo here. Doesn't feel like this is a critcisim worth including in the article.Actionjackson09 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In reviewing the earlier version of this page, it also seemed like this statement was gossip alongside the remarks by Morari Bapu and sexual abuse allegations. I feel there's enough consensus to remove this statement.Moksha88 (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should criticism of this sect by Dayananda Saraswati, which he wrote in Satyarth Prakash, be included? --Krishna's flute (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Krishna's flute this discussion has taken place in the section above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampraday#Dayanand_Saraswati's_opinion:_WP:FRINGE,_WP:UNDUE? Please review the discussion there and feel free to give your thoughts on the topic. Apollo1203 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey all, I'm just looking at this rfc here, and as a passerby on this thread and reading WP:RFC I'm a little confused as to why it's here. It seems that at the link mentioned above that consensus has been reached on this matter. Furthermore, Satyarth Prakash reads like it's a primary source and in violation of WP:RS. The secondary source cited by user Harshil169 seems to go awry of WP:UNDUE, WP:WWIN and WP:GRATUITOUS especially the "except few sodomy cases". This seems oddly picked out and unencyclopedic. As far as I can see this RFC has no need to remain open and I am closing it. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No expert of Wikipedia has commented on this. This expert doesn't violate WWIN and UNDUE. RfC is for uninvolved editors to look at the matter.(Personal attack removed) RfC is for getting wide range consensus from all. Close if you want to block yourself for TE. Krishna's flute (talk) 11:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

@Krishna’s flute: No. RfC isn’t for any expert but to give inputs which have not been discussed earlier. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes the book itself and authir himself is notable. Comments from this book has been used in criticism of Islam and christianity then why this not? Also, WP:FRINGE is for flat earthers, moon landing consipers and geocentric pseudoscientists not for Vedic scholars like Dayananda. There is nothing fringe in his comments. All things are simple and followers of this (Personal attack removed) can obviously offended but Wikipedia is nor censored. Put this here. This is not undue or fringe. The book about sect is primary here, someone other's book which criticizes is secondary and coverage about thay book is tertiary. So this is not primary.-106.213.163.246 (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2019 (UTC) This IP is probably single purpose and has no other contributions outside subject.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?}

• Yes I too support inclusion because Criticism of Muhammad, Criticism of Islam and all other has separate section of Dayananda Saraswati. Sahjananda was not special or above criticism. He was human and Dayananda exposed him. WP:Fringe is only for pseudoscience like mentioned above, it is not for opinion of scholars and all criticism pages has view of Dayananda. He was Hindu revivalist. I support inclusion here. Book, author and all other things are notable. No other problem.Krishna's flute (talk) 13:19, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Krishna's flute based on your conjecture regarding being an expert and the lack of edit count of those commenting here, you and the anonymous IP (who favor 'Yes') would not be considered experts on this topic and your opinions would be null on this matter. Anonymous IP has 4 edits (coincidentally only on the Swaminarayan page), and you only have 32 edits. Whoever will be closing this discussion, please keep this in mind. Apollo1203 (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I echo concerns of IP. Fringe is generally for flat earthers, Astrologers and moon lending conspirers. It doesn’t apply for Dayananda Saraswati, he was not fringe but scholar. For an example, P.N. Oak was fringe historian and Wikipedia description has been given as it is. But it is not case for Dayananda because he was appreciated by most of scholars because of his Vedic scholarship and Advaita point of view. In an addition, no one who called him undue and fringe provided any consensus from WP:FRINGEN about this. To label someone as fringe, we need consensus on the noticeboards. Also, Dayananda’s views have been covered Criticism of Jesus, Muhammad, Christianity, Islam and every religion. Generally, Vivekananda, Dayananda, Mahatma Gandhi and Raja Ram Mohan Roy are notable and we give weightage to their ideas.

• So, was Dayananda Fringe?N
• Is there any consensus that he was fringe historian? N
• Are other articles give coverage To Dayananda’s views?Y
• Did Dayananda wrote offensive?Y but WP:NOTCENSORED.
• Should it be include by following same guidelines here? Y

• If someone is objecting his views here by calling it as fringe or undue then do following first.

  Find any Wikipedia consensus which call him as fringe. Consensus should be on India, Fringe or Hinduism related Noticeboards.

  Find mention of Dayananda in any of the category or list of pseudohistorians or fringe personality.

  Removing his criticism from Jesus, Muhammad or Islam related articles.

  Otherwise, IMHO, this is just WP:DE to include material and making Wikipedia as censored. If there is counter of his criticism from sect then we can add it but I doubt if one can counter scholar like him. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

All, I took some time to reflect on the topic at hand and some major issues that are on-going:

1. Conduct, specifically - WP:CIVILITY. The language used towards others and the comments are belittling (specifically @Krishna’s flute: on edit count) and offensive (the repetitive use of the word 'cult'). I have used the RPA template to eliminate such offensive language. Additionally, this topic has been on-going between a few editors, however, @Krishna’s flute: you did not engage with any of us and went straight to RFC, this could be perceived as WP:GAME. I should have not responded in the way I did as I reacted to the comments - I apologize for my reaction.

2. We should all review the WP:BRD-NOT in order to reach a consensus and close this discussion. To avoid the cycle of edits-reverts - I will past the text in question in my sandbox for us to discuss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Apollo1203/sandbox. @Harshil169: - I read into Undue/Fringe policies and you are correct on the approach to using such policies and would not validate the exclusion of the text “in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public. If you can prove a theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof.” Additionally, we can look at WP:BALASPS: "the weight a Wikipedia article gives to criticism of its subject should be proportionate to the overall weight of such criticisms in reliable sources on the subject of the article.” I think we also need to prove the significance of Satyarth Prakash (WP:PROVEIT). Just because the content exists on the criticism pages you have mentioned, it does not mean we ignore Wikipedia policies for this page. We should address the content on the other pages as well to uphold the policy. We need secondary sources to put Dayanand Saraswati's criticism in context, currently, it is a Primary Source (WP:PRIMARY). The material we are posting does not support the article as encyclopedic, it is just dumping libelous material (WWIN:INDISCRIMINATE). For example, Krin Narayan's book (Storytellers, Saints, and Scoundrels), she clearly states that Dayanand Saraswati has given a "unabashedly biased history of various sects within Hinduism" (141). Let us discuss this topic and find a resolution. Apollo1203 (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: Focus on arguments first and talk on content. I can see goal posts have been changed again and again. To declare fringe, scholarly consensus is required which is absent for Dayananda. Kiran Narain’s opinion is personal, not scholarly consensus. I already wrote find consensus. Satyarth Prakash is reliable source and have been used in multiple Wikipedia articles as I pointed out. Some of them have gained status of good article even, so, your point of primary source fails here. Also, for articles related to Dayananda, his book is primary source, not for this sect. WP: PROVEIT is to verify content, not to test whether it is right or not. Original libellous content can’t be posted on Wikipedia but it can contain offensive material as per WP:NOTCENSORED. I’m pinging @Ms Sarah Welch, Kautilya3, and Nizil Shah: for their opinion on notability of Vedic scholar Dayananda and his book. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Also, the citation of policies have been repeatedly changed from WP:FRINGE to WP:PRIMARY to libellous. Point to be noted is satyarth prakash is biased and that is okay. @Apollo1203: I think you’re aware of Policy shoping, wiki lawyering and topic ban. This may be considered as behaviour of WP:TE and specially POV fighting. Take care about it!— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 17:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Policies aside, I think the core question Apollo is trying to raise is whether incorporating all the statements gives them undue weight. Harshil, I assume good faith and will study the other pages closely that you referenced. Please be patient with me as we await the input of other editors. It's possible that these articles may also suffer from this issue in which case we are all obligated to improve them. While I agree Wikipedia is not censored, I also think we need to acknowledge, "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner." (WP:GRATUITOUS) Looking at the text in question on Apollo's sandbox, I think it can be summarized better if we are to include it. Moksha88 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• Krishna's Flute: Do you have a proposed specific draft language? Criticism with context that aids the understanding of a subject/topic, is generally welcome. Criticism without context that merely aims to shock/demean/bash/vent/spread misinformation about a community/topic/subject isn't. For example, a draft along the lines of the following would aid the discussion and further collaboration: "The Swaminarayan tradition was criticized by Dayanand Saraswati – the founder of Arya Samaj who interpreted Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion, who was against all idols, who sought to return Hinduism to what he believed to be its rightful Vedic foundations.[1] According to Dayanand Saraswati, the Swaminarayan tradition "....".[2][3] According to (Indologist/community leader) [...], Dayanand Saraswati's views about Swaminarayan are [correct/incorrect] because [...].[4] etc etc Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:I think she has not. But we have one version in history which was proposed by me in above thread and currently lies in sandbox of Apollo1203. Kindly, share your opinion whether it fails encyclopaedic standard or not.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

That is unencyclopedic and undue. It lacks the necessary context (i.e. Dayanand Saraswati – the founder of Arya Samaj who interpreted Hinduism to be a monotheistic religion, who was against all idols, who sought to return Hinduism to what he believed to be its rightful Vedic foundations. See C. Mackenzie Brown, E. Allen Richardson, Arvind Rajagopala, etc). Avoid quote farms. Please consider the template suggested above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)