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)

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)

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)

WP:LASTNAME

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2016

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

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

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

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

My understanding was that this talk page discussion was resolved last year. Two ex-members made allegations and nothing came from it. The articles that Swamiblue is using to source are from 2013 and there have been no further developments. This doesn’t belong in the article. Actionjackson09 (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Actionjackson09. It is clear from the talk page post above that User:Swamiblue's suggestion on the talk page is a violation of WP:BLP as the discussion with User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN some time ago had made clear. This is why the information suggested by User:Swamiblue is not in the article, so that issue is not the matter of debate here. Moreover, as User:NeilN suggests, the BLP violation is not even about WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPGOSSIP. In any case, what is clear is that it is a violation of WP:BLP. As such, the policy for BLP violations is very clear- immediate deletion (WP:BLP). This includes all wikipedia user spaces, not just articles, as is made clear in WP:BLPTALK. So, Kapil.xerox is incorrect in asking for the relevant users to delete that talk page post. It can and should be summarily deleted by anyone according to the policies mentioned. Moreover, according to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, once the offending text has been summarily deleted by any editor, unlike in other situations on wikipedia where some consensus is required to make a change, in this case, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore this material, meaning they must establish consensus before doing so. So, based on these very clearly laid out BLP policies, I think Kapil.xerox or anyone can summarily delete the talk page post, as it contains information in violation of WP:BLP. Sacredsea (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the content in question remains improper (just as it was in 2014) for inclusion both in the article and this talk page on WP:BLP grounds. Further, Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (WP:TALKO) state that it is appropriate for an editor to remove another editor's talk page comments if they comprise prohibited material, including content that violates WP:BLP. In my view, the prior discussions on this page regarding such content should thus be removed. HinduPundit (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

It appears that most of the involved editors here agree on this issue. The off-topic content posted on the Talk page is indeed out of place as it violates Wikipedia policies relating to talk pages. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kapil.xerox (talk • contribs) 04:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that there is no further discussion on this issue and consensus has been reached that inclusion in the talkpage is a BLP violation as I had mentioned above, thus I am remedying issue. Sacredsea (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the talk page discussion that violates WP:BLP was reverted, I think since I did not give an edit summary. This time I am removing it with an appropriate edit summary. If anyone feels after going through the previous discussion in this section if my action is out of line with wikipedia policy which I stated in my above post on 22 March 2016, I would love to have a discussion here on that issue. Thanks.Sacredsea (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to remove the discussion altogether. The discussion was whether the allegations should be included in the article. The consensus was no. I don't see how this blatantly violates BLP. I have collapse the discussion, but it should stay as a reference and can be used to point out to other editors who want to insert the same allegations into the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I am copying here an earlier post explaining why this is a blatant WP:BLP violation. The fact that it violates WP:BLP is the consensus of editors so far. Until that consensus changes, I am again removing it for violation. Copied text here:I agree with Actionjackson09. It is clear from the talk page post above that User:Swamiblue's suggestion on the talk page is a violation of WP:BLP as the discussion with User:Bladesmulti and User:NeilN some time ago had made clear. This is why the information suggested by User:Swamiblue is not in the article, so that issue is not the matter of debate here. Moreover, as User:NeilN suggests, the BLP violation is not even about WP:BLPCRIME, but WP:BLPGOSSIP. In any case, what is clear is that it is a violation of WP:BLP. As such, the policy for BLP violations is very clear- immediate deletion (WP:BLP). This includes all wikipedia user spaces, not just articles, as is made clear in WP:BLPTALK. So, Kapil.xerox is incorrect in asking for the relevant users to delete that talk page post. It can and should be summarily deleted by anyone according to the policies mentioned. Moreover, according to WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, once the offending text has been summarily deleted by any editor, unlike in other situations on wikipedia where some consensus is required to make a change, in this case, the burden of proof is on the editor who wishes to restore this material, meaning they must establish consensus before doing so. So, based on these very clearly laid out BLP policies, I think Kapil.xerox or anyone can summarily delete the talk page post, as it contains information in violation of WP:BLP. Sacredsea (talk) 4:07 pm, 22 March 2016, Tuesday (3 months, 21 days ago) (UTC−4) Sacredsea (talk) 22:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Lead Section

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

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

Refusal by City of Chino Hills to provide police escort

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016

Died on 13/08/2016

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