Talk:Pramukh Swami Maharaj

Referencing

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

• Wikipedia:Citing sources - A page that shows the different styles of citing information
  • Wikipedia:Citation templates - Generally, I tend to use these templates for citing information.

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

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

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

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

Sorry

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

Removal of Paradox and Future Successor Section

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

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

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

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

1. The first sentence of Swamifraud's edits misstates the Williams text in order to imply that Pramukh Swami's role within BAPS as the manifestation of Akshar is a “forbidden claim,” whereas the actual Williams text merely describes a perceived contrast between BAPS devotees' belief in this regard and the observation that Pramukh Swami does not claim divinity or demand honors for himself.

2. The third sentence again implies that Pramukh Swami claims divinity for himself, whereas Williams' actual text states the exact opposite in multiple instances (see paragraph 2 of the above Williams excerpt).

3. The fifth sentence improperly uses a quote from the Williams text to refer to something unrelated to the actual text. User:Swamifraud's edit couples a reference to murtis of Pramukh Swami in BAPS mandirs with an ostensibly relevant quote from Williams: “Followers see this as evidence of humility and self-denial...etc.” In reality, this quote from Williams page 95 refers to Pramukh Swami's practice of declining to chant his name along with those of his predecessors.

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

Thanks for clearing that up. Pramukh Swami looks like he is going to pass any day now so we should prepare for the out pour of vandals by adding a successor section. I understand if you can't contribute as that may be a difficult topic for you. Swamifraud (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

No it has been addressed. You seem to have a problem with a dying old man's paradox section on a public website. 141.217.84.55 (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sexual Abuse Allegations Section

Recently, Pramukh Swami Maharaj was accused of sexual abuse. The sources are from BAPS.org or indiaexpress.com. I believe that many people have tried to incorporate these allegations but are not doing it properly. I am not an expert in using wikipedia but I have throughly studied the policies and it is absolutly correct to have these allegations in this encyclopedia according to wikipedia policy.

Over the past 40 years, under his able leadership and guidance, BAPS has become a global socio-spiritual organization. What was, over 100 years ago, a small institution with a few hundred devotees and a handful of sadhus, is now a dynamic worldwide organization with over 1100 mandirs, over 3,850 centres, 17,500 weekly satsang assemblies (children, youth and devotees), over 880 sadhus and a million followers spread in five continents...Out of his compassion for humanity, he has made over 17,000 village, town and city visits and sanctified over 250,000 homes in India and abroad. He has read and replied to over 700,000 letters, and personally counselled over 810,000 people.

http://www.baps.org/About-BAPS/TheCurrentSpiritualGuru-PramukhSwamiMaharaj/His-Work.aspx

Pramukh Swami meets the critera for Notability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CRIME#Basic_criteria

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."

He is known around the world and is the president of a world organization with thosands of temples around the globe.

BAPS said in response to the allegations:

To all satsangis and well-wishers of BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha,

It is with deep sadness that we share with you that Sanjay Shah (Priyadarshandas) and Rakesh Bhavsar (Nishkamsevadas), two former sadhus of BAPS, have made demonstrably false and outrageous accusations against His Holiness Pramukh Swami Maharaj and four other BAPS sadhus.

For the last 60 years we have served closely under Pramukh Swami Maharaj and have witnessed his pure and saintly life. The claims made against him and his sadhus are utterly baseless and false.

May all satsangis and well-wishers not be misled by these allegations. We request all to remain calm and maintain forbearance. We pray that God inspires all with good sense and heart.

Sadhu Keshavjivandas (Mahant Swami) Sadhu Swayamprakashdas (Dr Swami)

http://www.baps.org/Announcement/2013/Message-for-All-5347.aspx

Furthermore multiple secondary sources stated and confirmed the allegations: http://www.indianexpress.com/news/baps-refutes-allegations-by-former-sadhus/1186609/ http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3107856951.html

I would like to see a consensus and someone with some decent experience can update this on the article. This is a very sensative topic and must have insight from people who are not involved with this group.

Priya Patel

216.138.103.10 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)