Talk:Radha Madhav Dham

Name

Name of Barsana Dham wikipedia page was changed to Radha Madhav Dham in order to reflect the name change of the ashram. Biography of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati and 2011 trial section were moved to wikipedia page on Prakashanand Saraswati. This page is about the temple only, and not about a particular patron or member of the temple. 86.45.240.67 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of controversy section as per Prakashanand's conviction of indecency with a child, and name change

• This is the place for any debate on the above subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure the above editor is editing in good faith. After reducing the article to a stub on the pretence of a name change, they nominated it for deletion. A peacock tag was added twice with no explanation. Now, they are dumping the majority of Swami Prakashanand Saraswati into this article, which is plainly not about him. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The Afd concluded that this is the same organization that Swami Prakashanand Saraswati founded. Since he, and Barsana Dham, have received substantial attention for the indecency with a child incident, as well as a name change - apparently in response to the indecency with a child incident - the information is part of the history of this subject. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. That's like saying if the CEO of Megacorp was charged with murder, then a substantial portion of Megacorp's article should be about the details of the murder. You've been around long enough to know that articles are focused on the subject, which in this case is the organization. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I've read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK, and neither of these state that this material should be removed. This material, while it needs to be edited, is part of the history of this subject. To remove it would be misleading. This organization experienced an event (it's founder, at this location - which received substantial media attention for the event, was convicted of indecency with a child) and received substantial media attention for it. In addition, the "name change" (due to the "indecency with a child" incident) also received substantial news coverage from reliable sources. As such, this material should be included in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is not in good faith whatsoever. The article is about the temple, not about a particular member/former member of the temple. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has his own article. Why should the material be duplicated into two articles? Also note that Ism Schism has nominated every article relating to this temple for deletion - only to recreate it when there is some negative story in the news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make any sense to include a section called "Controversy" when there is no controversy related to the subject of the article. The controversy was about a particular person. To say that "the "name change" (due to the "indecency with a child" incident)" is a false statement, since there are no reliable sources that state the name change had anything to with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The founder, and especially his impact on the temple (and responsibility for the name change), is relevant. For more information, please see - Barsana Dham Ashram, Once Home to Wanted Felon Guru Prakashanand Saraswati, Changes Name and Appoints a New Leader -- Another Accused Rapist, and With guru on the lam, ashram changes name Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:36, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Then please read WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK again. This article is about the temple. Rather than appearing to be asserting your own WP:POV, consider creating biographical articles about the personnel involved and leaving them out of the temple article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Comment The founder of the temple, his activities at the temple, and their coverage in multiple reliable sources (which led to the change in name) is very relevant to the article. To remove such information would be misleading at best. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment The article is about a temple, not about a particular member of the temple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 03:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply This is not about a member - but the temple and its founder, and his activities at the temple, which led to his conviction and the temple changing names/boards/etc... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply Its not about "the temple and its founder", the article is about a temple. The one who founded it 21 years ago has a separate article. Your edit history and discussions have shown that you don't understand wikipedia policy whatsoever, and you are intentionally trolling. Anyone else have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.59.50 (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

This is actually a frequent misunderstanding of Wikipedia WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK policy. It is not our work to expose drama - Wikipedia is not a tabloid - and it can sometimes be very difficult to remain neutral and free of bias when one article attempts to address distinctly separate core subjects and their related issues, especially in the kind of article that depicts positive and negative aspects of the subject(s). Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. In the temple article however, one one sentence is more than enough enough about founders, adepts, or employees, and what they have or have not done. Different articles can be legitimately created on subjects which themselves represent points of view, as long as the title clearly indicates what its subject is, the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally, and each article cross-references articles on other appropriate points of view. Biographical information should therefore be the subject of separate articles that should nevertheless not become POV forks in order to satisfy one opinion over another. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Note: Before accusing editors of trolling, could editors please relieve the confusion by correctly indenting their posts with colons (:), signing them, and completing an edit summary. This is not a debate and there is no need to proceed each post with a bold Comment or Reply. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

To put Ism Schizm's edits in context, please look at the article New Vrindavan, of which Ism Schizm has been an editor because it is a community within the spiritual group he follows. The founder of that community was also convicted for something, and has his own article, yet Ism Schizm has not put an entire section called "controversy" in the New Vrindavan article because that article is about the group, not about the founder. What is the difference in this article? The only difference is that Ism Schizm has a demonstratable bias against the subject of this article and using it to coatrack his dislike of the founder. Can we also add a section called "Criminal conviction and imprisonment" (from [1] and place it in the New Vrindavan article? Probably not, because they are two seperate subjects. I'm comparing the two articles, only to show that Ism Schizm knows that a huge section on controversy related to a founder of an organization has no place in an article solely about the organization itself. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account feedback on this page, you can propose the changes you'd like to see or be bold and edit the article itself. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, the New Vrindavan article, of which Ism Schizm is an editor, doesn't even give a mention of the conviction of its founder - just that he "left" it. At most, this article should have a passing mention of it or not at all - especially since he appears to no longer be a member of that organization. A huge section called "controvesry" is inappropriate when the controversy is about one person who is longer involved in the organization. It would be like having a section on the Monika Lewisky scandal (whether it was true or not) in the article about the United States. For the record, there seems to be a whole body of evidence that the trial against Prakashanand was a sham: including the fact that the jury consisted of a hand-picked group of people, including a former disgrunteled employee of the temple, and not neutral members of the public, but that is irrelevent to this discussion until further details emerge. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would support removal of the section now and then a discussion of two or three sentences to add about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have mentioned the issue in [2]. I think we should leave it until we get a more unanimous consensus from more people. 86.46.58.41 (talk) 15:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get "unanimous" consensus (but I might be pleasantly surprised) but we'll get consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

• Proposal After looking at the New Vrindavan article, I think it could be used as a good model. The section under discussion is too long, and not placed into context historically. So, here is what I propose. A few sentences could sum up this material, the controversy and name change, within the context of the temple's history - from creation to the present form/name/management/guru. This could be done under a section titled History, which would detail the creation, and evolution of this organization/place up to the present. I am willing to work on an objective section that would deal with the milestones of this community/temple's history. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I do not believe that you can write anything objective about this organization. Whether you know it or not, this organization has suffered decades of a brutal smear campaign from your organization (ISKCON), for whatever reason, both in India and internationally. I feel that you are caught up in the same sectarianism. There are some hate groups on facebook relating to this organization, and a huge majority of the members are from your organization. In the past, there were were numerous blogs and discussion groups run by devotees from your organization, and I believe it was reading those blogs that gave those three women the idea to come forward and make false accusations against Prakashanand Saraswati. Some people from your organization have done more damage to this organization than you will ever understand, and I don't understand why. Your edits on facebook only confirm that there is a bias somewhere. But this is talk page so you are free to write something if you want, and neutral editors can come to a consensus - if it abides by wikipedia's guidelines. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Just because I study a religious organization (and I study many) does not mean that I am a member. Do you have any constructive comments to add concerning this article? If so, we can begin working towards a consensus. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I would rather wait for more people to join this discussion first to get a nearly unanimous, and more diversified consensus about the topics so far discussed and to prevent the possibility of the page staying a coatrack and an attack page, or a page which is any less encyclopedic than related pages on wikipedia. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. In the meantime, I will work on a time-line marking the milestones of the subject, backed by reliable sources, that I will propose - and then we can work from there. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

86, since this is an obscure topic it is quite likely that few (or no) other editors will join. I would suggest that you come up with some specific article changes. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN in that "some specific article changes" should be created/proposed - this is the place to engage in such discussions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

OK I will come up with some suggestions tomorrow. The main issue is not to have an entire section on controversy, when the controversy was about a particular person and not about the subject of the article. A neutral, one sentence mention of the conviction of the founder will suffice - e.g. "The founder was convicted and given a 280 year sentence based on the testimony of three women, who said they were groped 15 years earlier." For balance, controversy surrounding the handling of the trial should be mentioned in one or two sentences - mainly it was widely reported in multiple reliable sources that evidence went missing from both the police station and from the DA's office - evidence that was considered crucial for the Swami's defense. e.g. [3] One sentence about the conviction, one sentence about the missing evidence, and one sentence about his disappearance should be enough, and one sentence about the name change. Also, there is no proof that the name change was directly because of the conviction of the founder, just that they coincided with each other. Ism Schism, you have indicated that you want the article to be some kind of exposé, and you have a history of editing articles related to a "rival" organization, which in my opinion disqualifies you from participating in it - but I will trust that you realize that's not what wikipedia is about. Considering your edit history, I am doubtful that your interest in the article is about creating a valid encyclopedia article, and I think its to push an agenda. But feel free to prove the wikipedia community wrong. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 00:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to both your suggestions and working with you. Thanks again. Ism schism (talk) 01:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• I am drawing up a new section called "Management" or "Ashram Management" 86.46.47.195 (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is what I propose for the new section called "Management": The temple was founded in 1990 by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. It is part of a worldwide organization called Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat. 82 year old Swami Prakashanand Saraswati was convicted and sentenced in absentia in 2011 for 280 years based on statements by three women that they were groped as teenagers 17 years earlier. Controversy arose when evidence which was crucial to the defence went missing from the Sheriff's office evidence room and the DAs office before the trial. (Update today:) US Marshals don't know where he is. In April, 2011 the organization's name was changed to JKP Radha Madhav Dham and a governing body, led by board president Raj Goel, was put in place to run the organization. As well as a management group, the spiritual activities of the organization are overseen by a local sanyasi leadership. The sanyasi spiritual teacher of Radha Madhav Dham is Swami Nikhilanand. 86.46.47.195 (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

reference cleanup needed

If an article uses the (preferred) <:ref> tag citation method, the footnotes should NOT be double cited by the (paren) citation method as well. Its looks really horrendous. Active Banana (^bananaphone 14:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive and false tagging by editor

A user called User:Ism_schism is repeatedly adding {{fact}} tags and {{not in source}} where they are not due. It is obvious, if you look at his history of editing the page that he has a personal agenda with that page. Please see the [4]] delete discussion which he initiated a few months back. The result was keep, but a read of the discussion page will show what his agenda is. Please also see the Talk Page for the article. The organization changed its name (from Barsana Dham to Radha Madhav Dham) back in March/April. It is still the same organization, but under a different name. This was discussed on the deletion page, as well as the discussion page. It had been decided that all sources relating to the old name, were relevant for the new name. Well, this past week, the user has been adding irrelevant and disruptive tags. For example, see his most recent edit from yesterday: [5]

- The source says that it is the one of the largest Hindu Temple in the USA, both under the old name, as well as under the new name. Harvard Plurism Project. Yet the user added a tag.

- The source says that "Approximately 1000 families attend Radha Madhav Dham. Barsana Dham Hindu Temple. 96% of these are Indian, the remaining 4% being Westerners and people of Caribbean descent." The source uses the old name, but it had been discussed on the delete page that it was the same organization/temple so any sources using the old name are relevant to the new name. Yet, the user added a {{not in source}} tag. It is in the source, but under the old name, and furthermore, the user had been involved in the discussion about the name change.

- The user added {{not in source}} tags to most of the festivals celebrated by the organization. See Maha Shivratri, Jhulan Leela, Radha Ashtmi, 'Govardhan Puja. Not only are they in the source, but they are in the source under the new name. So it was blatant false tagging. The source in this case was Harvard Plurism Project.

- The user added {{not in source}} tag to the sentence "National eye camps and mother/child welfare programs also have been established throughout India, providing free eye exams, cataract surgery and polio vaccines to those in need." The link in question is dead, [6], so it is dishonest to say , as he had not seen the original article. As it happens I have a backup link which I will add, but then he will just find something else to tag.

- He falsely added a {{not in source}} tag here "The organization was selected to represent Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in 1993.Source: Nevans-Pederson, M. Nov 16, 2002. Seeking Divine unity through Hinduism. The Telegraph-Herald.

There are many more recent examples of gratuitous or blatantly false tagging. Here is one more example, [7] - He claimed that the phrase "It is the oldest Hindu Temple in Texas." was not backed up by the source. The source stated "the oldest Hindu Temple in the Lone Star State" which means the same thing.

This user has a history of edits on Radha Madhav Dham and Prakashanand Saraswati (the founder of the organization) which seems to show that they have a bias, want to portray the subject in the worst way possible, have a ({{Refimprove|date=November 2011}}) (or some variant) at the top of the article (to diminish the credibility of the article). The article is extremely well sourced, it seems dishonest to add a {{Refimprove}} to it, even if there was one or two areas which needed improving. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 13:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Also please see the users Talk Page to see accusations by other people about the user's edits to this article. 109.255.71.203 (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Same user has added another "not in source" tag where it was not relevent: See: [8] 109.255.71.203 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• This should be looked at again - I deleted it, but now see its relevance. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: On June 6th, the editor User:Ism schism made further disruptive edits by blanking this section about his disruptive editing - [9]. When a wikipedia user chastised him on his talk page, he gave a disruptive/nonconstructive reply (User_talk:Ism_schism#Refactor_at_Talk:Radha_Madhav_Dham) Lotusjuice (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The user, User:Ism schism made further disruptive edits by pasting large portions of text that had been changed by consensus (including his consensus) several months ago. It had been decided (by others and agreed by him) that this article is about Radha Madhav Dham and coatracking Swami Prakashanand Saraswati or others into an article about a place would violate wikipedia standards. There is a separate article about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati and there is no need for a second article about him. He admits above that he wanted the article to be a kind of "expose" about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati, although the article was not about him or anyone else. Also, he removed a section called "Shree Rasheseshwari Radha Rani Temple" which is about the main temple at Radha Madhav Dham and pasted the content into a section called "history". The section included physical features about the temple and surrounding structures and services at the temple. Placing it as "history" doesn't make any sense. Not having a section about the temple (which is the main part of Radha Madhav Dham) wouldn't make any sense. Lotusjuice (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• March 2012 is new info! Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
  • I have re-added that part. Lotusjuice (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

International Society of Divine Love

This subject was named International Society of Divine Love before it was Barsana Dham. This leaves is pretty blank in the history section. I will try to find more information to better account for the history. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• This would help form a more chronological understanding of the historical development of the community. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Image deletion

• The image for the article was deleted. Have not seen an updated one. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat

• The parent organization could use some work. How this temple RMD fits into this organization JKP is unclear juxtapose The International Society of Divine Love. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New info per 2012

New info has been added with reliable sources. If there is a problem, please discuss here. I will restore the mass deletion of reliably sourced material. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

New info is fine. I have re-added some of it. However "International Society of Divine Love" was never renamed as "Barsana Dham". They are two separate things. The source which mentions it is incorrect. International Society of Divine Love is the previous name of Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat. Lotusjuice (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have things the wrong way around. You need to get consensus for the new material you wish to add, before re-adding it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It was the International Society of Divine Love. With guru on the lam, ashram makes changes from the Austin American Statesman says, "This is the second time the ashram has changed identities since moving to the Austin area. In 1991, when it purchased the 211 acres on which Barsana Dham/Radha Madhav Dham now sits, the organization was known as the International Society of Divine Love." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes that is correct. ISDL was running Barsana Dham until it's name was changed to JKP (in 2000/2001). Then Barsana Dham's name was changed to Radha Madhav Dham, and is still being run by JKP (nee ISDL). Barsana Dham was never called ISDL though, and your source, or any other source, doesn't say that either. It really doesn't make a difference to me though whatever way it is stated. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Please can you provide sources that meet WP:RS, where are these sources? I have provided reliable sources per WP:RS. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass deletion

• Residents accusations against Founder

In 2007, three former residents alleged to Hays County police that, 15 years earlier as teenagers, they had been abused at Barsana Dham by Prakashanand Swami, who was arrested on April 25, 2008. Five months later the stories of 5 women were anonymously reported in an Austin Statesman article, which said: "Sexual advances from the two spiritual gurus of the Barsana Dham temple were a part of life for some women who lived on, or frequently visited, the ashram south of Austin, according to the recollections of five women who spent a collective 60 years living, working and worshipping at the Hindu temple". Barsana Dham sent out a press release condeming Austin Stateman: "Barsana Dham vehemently denies the claims made against its spiritual leaders and expressed disappointment that the American-Statesman published a story based on false and malicious allegations made by a few anonymous people."

As the part of the bond condition Swamiji was barred from entering the Barsana Dham and his legal team tried to modify it but judge refused 12 men and women declared Swamiji guilt of 20 counts of child molestation, after only 50 minutes deliberation, on Friday March 4, 2011.

• Disappearance of Founder and second name change

In April 2011, following the "disappearance of its founder and leading guru" Swami Prakashanand Saraswati after his conviction on 20 charges of sexual indecency with a child at Barsana Dham, the organization changed its name. According to the Austin American-Statesman, "Barsana Dham has moved aggressively on the Internet to wipe out all traces of its connection to the guru. The name of the ashram has been changed to JKP Radha Madhav Dham. On its new website, pictures or mentions of Prakashanand are nowhere to be found."

"This is the second time the ashram has changed identities since moving to the Austin area. In 1991, when it purchased the 211 acres on which Barsana Dham/Radha Madhav Dham now sits, the organization was known as the International Society of Divine Love."

• Post-trial reforms

The ashram is now led by a board of managing members, headed by board president Mr. Raj Goel. Raj Goel stated that the new governing body was created "to re-invigorate the organization's educational and charitable mission, and to further its spiritual aim -- inspiring selfless devotion to God, in the form of Radha and Krishna, as described in the major ancient Hindu scriptures, such as the Vedas and the Bhagvad Gita."

Radha Madhav Dham has distanced itself from its former leader, Prakashandand Saraswati, aka Swamiji. One month after the trial, then "Barsana Dham" leaders "changed the organization's name and erased the once-omnipresent images and mentions of the former guru from the premises." Peter Spiegel, the Barsana Dham Treasurer who personally paid for $11 million worth of bonds for the community's founder, is not on the new board and is no longer treasurer for the organization.

In 2012, on the one year anniversary of the trial, Vrinda Devi, Radha Madhav Dham spokeswoman, stated that "What we've been trying to do since then is moving forward." She added that, "As far as Swamiji's presence, we've subdued that in order to go on and survive as a minority religious community."

Note The above was a mass deletion of well sourced material. It updates the history of this subject. It should be in the article as it is about the article, relevant, and based on reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It reverts the consensus which was previously agreed on, and you just copied a section of text that had already been discussed a year ago. A year ago, you said about the text: "The section under discussion is too long, and not placed into context historically. So, here is what I propose. A few sentences could sum up this material, the controversy and name change, within the context of the temple's history - from creation to the present form/name/management/guru. This could be done under a section titled History, which would detail the creation, and evolution of this organization/place up to the present." Now you have reverted an earlier consensus by trying to turn the article into one about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. That seems to be your original goal. And given your penchant for abusive past edits of this article (nominating it for deletion a few times Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radha_Madhav_Dham - the deletion discussion itself shows your extraordinary bias against the subject, blanking it completely at one stage, disruptive and false tagging and everything else mentioned in the "Disruptive and false tagging by editor" section below, blanking the section about your disruptive edits and giving disrespectful answers when chastised about it User_talk:Ism_schism#Refactor_at_Talk:Radha_Madhav_Dham, it is not surprising that that goal hasn't changed and you have a deep personal bias against the subject and want to expose Swami Prakashanand Saraswati in an article that is not about him (i.e. Wikipedia:Coatrack). Lotusjuice (talk) 22:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to expose anybody - the reliable sources provide information for the article. The temple has a history of change, this should be noted - not deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

This was already noted, as per previous consensus (including yours), and is still in the present version of the article. There is another article about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati with a large section about his trial. There is no need for two articles on the same topic. Lotusjuice (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The complete history of the temple has been replaced with a partial history - it is not as simple as the article reads - just like life. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I have added correctly worded information about International Society of Divine Love, which was founded in the 1970s (1975 I think). Also, this section is incorrectly called "Mass Deletion" since most of the text is in the current version of the article. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You have provided no WP:RS for this. The International Society of Divine Love. With guru on the lam, ashram makes changes from the Austin American Statesman says, "This is the second time the ashram has changed identities since moving to the Austin area. In 1991, when it purchased the 211 acres on which Barsana Dham/Radha Madhav Dham now sits, the organization was known as the International Society of Divine Love." So... Where are your reliable sources - I provide them - why can't you? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wow These edits [10] allow for the names of victims who experienced abuse at Barsana Dham/Radha Madhva Dham - but not the story per WP:RS. This is blantant WP:POV pushing. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• • It doesn't matter either way. Delete the names if you don't think they are needed. The names were published in the Austin Statesman. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a horrendous violation of WP:BLP. Lotusjuice, never do anything like that again. Stuff like this will get you blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry. It was more the ages that I was trying to clarify. They are all published in reliable sources. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And Ism Schism, I guess the wording doesn't matter. I have no sources that exactly say how ISDL's is an organization which ran Barsana Dham, which later got its name changed to JKP. It doesn't matter what way you want to word it. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

That was really sicko. They were molested - and you want their names public - and not the complex history of a temple community based on WP:RS. Your mass deletion should be reconsidered. All your edits should be reconsidered. Wow! Ism schism (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Austin Statesman published their names with the women's own permission. Anyway, I am still learning wikipedia policy - that is what discussions are for. Lotusjuice (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Its now on record that you thought the names of the victims of child molestation be mentioned in an article more than the general history - the history that you deleted? Wow!!! Messed up. Ism schism (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't delete any history. I just kept the information about Swami Prakashanand Saraswati brief, in the context of the history of the temple, as you have also stated in a previous discussion of this page. The article isn't about him, its about an ashram/temple. We both now agree on the same thing. I have also included the information about ISDL even though it is not entirely correct. Lotusjuice (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on this - I think you are sick for wanting to name victims of child molestation in an article - they have been through enough, and yet you name them again??? Sick!!! Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have this time, actually, to speak with someone who is so vicious and hateful that will continue to argue when I am not even opposing you. I will try to come up with a more detailed history of the temple that actually focuses on the topic of this article. Thanks. Lotusjuice (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Latest Deletions

While unsavory, the sexual indecency charges against the founder are part of the organization's history and should be mentioned as they caused the name and leadership change. [11] Thoughts? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Swami Prakashanand Sarawati's affiliation was up to the time of Barsana Dham. Radha Madhav Dham is a new board, new administration, and new mandate. Radha Madhav Dham derives its inspiration from Jagadguru Shree Kripaluji Maharaj's teachings and is promoting devotion to Radha Krishn. It is in no way promoting anything related to Swami Prakashanand Saraswati.

Equating the name and leadership change with the events leading to the trial is purely conjecture. Dktaylor2013 (talk) 19:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the current situation. In the past, its leader was Saraswati. It's like a political party who changes leaders. Just because the new leader has a new vision and new people, that does not mean all traces of the old leader are wiped from its history. Secondly, most of the article (and the organization's claim to notability) deals with pre-2011 events. A completely "new" organization would not have any claim to these achievements/recognition. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:56, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical significance

Regarding this, I fail to see how being asked to lead a prayer in a low-level court is historically significant let alone worthy of being added to the lede. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The history section gives the misleading impression there's no history after 2012. Did it end in 2012? Leading a prayer at a Government event is clearly notable, backed by primary and secondary sources. It's clearly noteworthy that a Hindu organization was chosen (via a stringent vetting process) to lead the prayer. Deleting it is completely arbitrary, as there is less reliable information in the article with single dead sources. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:D5FE:5EB9:27E2:E683 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It does not give that impression. If it ended at 2012, that would be explained with sources and context. These sources are very weak, as two are from county court records which are WP:PRIMARY and totally insufficient for establishing due weight. The only other source is a passing mention in a local editorial critical of the practice on 14th amendment grounds. That editorial explains that the county court randomly selects religious leaders from a list which undermines any claim that this is particularly significant or noteworthy. Grayfell (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Selected from a list of entries that are specifically vetted by the Government as meeting the prayer guidelines, (where others on the list are cited as contravening the guidelines), and being the only Hindu temple to lead a prayer is highly significant and encyclopedia-worthy as it is information that a researcher on the topic would want to know. It also establishes the context of the temple in U.S society and history as a whole. If the history section has nothing after 2012, the clear impression being given is that there is no history of the temple from that year onwards. Almost 5 years have passed since the last history entry, and there is a POV-attempt to keep it that way. 37.228.237.165 (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The point of that one lonely opinion piece is that these guidelines are arbitrary and poorly enforced. To include the temple based on that source we would have to attribute the opinion and provide surrounding context, which doesn't seem helpful. If you cannot find a better source, this doesn't belong. The lack of recent events in the history section isn't particularly notable by itself, since this isn't the temple's website, and including this based on flimsy sources just to pad-out the section is non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Have included the context as best I can. It's not about padding out the history section, but including information that is relevant and cited sources. The primary sources aren't in and of themselves enough to establish notability, but the discussion in the secondary source (and there are other dead sources as discovered in old versions of this page) is noteworthy and the event was a notable part of the temple's history since 2012. It's notable that a county Government was accused of "sponsoring" religion, and a Hindu temple at that. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:ECB6:1139:20A2:2C85 (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that we need a better source to establish that this really is notable. We don't agree that this is obviously notable, so we need reliable, independent sources to do this for us. That's how WP:NPOV is preserved. This isn't an uncommon accusation by 1st amendment types, in Texas or elsewhere, and the source barely even mentions the temple at all. The source doesn't make it central to the accusation (it sort of vaguely implies that it's a tokenism) but it doesn't belong without something more substantial than primary sources and an obscure opinion in an obscure paper by an obscure lawyer. Grayfell (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It is factual, sourced and encyclopedia worthy and enhances the article as it shows the context of the temple in its history since 2012 and in the wider society, and is backed by multiple sources, ranging from primary to secondary. A Hindu temple leading a prayer at a county Government function is noteworthy. Also noteworthy is the controversy it evoked in a member of the legal community. Deleting it is a completely arbitrary and POV-pushing act. 37.228.237.165 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Who is saying it's encyclopedia worthy? The sources I've seen are not saying that, and that's what Wikipedia uses. This one event is backed by three references from two sources: The minutes from the meeting itself, which are very poor for establishing significance, and a single op-ed in the San Marcos Mercury from 2013. The Mercury is a local paper/website with a very small staff (I only see one named staff member on the site) and no clearly established indication of fact checking and accuracy as required for reliable sources. I'm willing to accept that a story published there could be considered, but this is just an opinion that only mentions the temple a couple of times in passing without indicating this is in any way significant. There has been no news coverage of this event, nor any follow-up to this opinion piece as it relates to the temple, nor any indication at all that this was a substantial part of a real controversy of any lasting impact. Grayfell (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

That's ironic you criticize the San Marcos Mercury since you yourself use it as a significant reference in the article. So, clearly you have double standards, and removing mention to the Commissioner's Court event is arbitrary and makes no sense. The only conclusion is that you pushing a point of view. If there were no independent secondary sources, you would have said there's no sources. But there are. 37.228.237.165 (talk) 02:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition, you're using single-source, unreliable dead-links as major sources of info for this article whereas this has three sources and is relevent to the history of the temple. Enough said in regards to your POV agenda. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:ECB6:1139:20A2:2C85 (talk) 02:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about my editing history, and about Wikipedia's policies. I have not added any links to that site. Additionally, as I just said, I'm willing to accept that a story could be considered, but that's different from an op-ed which only mentions the temple in passing. My point was that there is a difference between an op-ed and a news story. Did you read that part? As for dead links, see WP:LINKROT. A dead link isn't automatically unreliable. I do not have any "POV agenda", and you should keep your insinuations about my motives out of it. Wikipedia:Civility is Wikipedia policy. Grayfell (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary decision to delete information obtained from San Marcos Record along with multiple other reliable sources, and on the other hand keep information from San Marcos Record with no other sources. Part of the noteworthiness of the Commissioner's Court information is that it caused controversy among a member of the legal community, which makes it more significant than if a third rate journalist wrote it. If there were no sources, you would have argued that there are no sources; but there are. The other reasons why it's noteworthy have already been mentioned. You haven't given any reason at all, apart from the fact that you don't want it there. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:819:5221:6C6D:29E3 (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Saying "it's arbitrary" doesn't make it so. The reasons are this: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:SECONDARY, WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTADVOCATE, etc. The name-change is vital encyclopedic information which is not contested by any source, nor is it particularly controversial by itself. I've added some additional sources to that point anyway, but this is more about convenience than due weight, as former names are crucial for research. Comparing that to a single prayer invocation at a minor government meeting is silly.

It wasn't a controversy that Radha Madhav Dham led the prayer. The controversy (although even calling that seems like a stretch) was that there are prayers at all. This temple was not a significant part of this supposed controversy, and not a single additional source supporting that has been presented. The author never even mentions the temple by name, and characterizes the inclusion of a "Hindu preacher" as a relatively benign step, saying they should be more inclusive and also include invocations by people who claim no religious affiliation. The controversy was NOT about including a the temple, and it wasn't even that much of a controversy! Including these details is blowing this way out of proportion, and without those details it fundamental misrepresents the entire point of the source. Grayfell (talk) 05:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey! User talk:2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:819:5221:6C6D:29E3 User talk:37.228.237.165, don't bother replying to this Maniac. Just look at the edit history by this person on the Kripalu Maharaj page and you'll know what I mean.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.242.229.226 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The above editor has already been warned, and blocked, multiple times over making personal attacks. Needless to say, this hasn't been a productive way to improve articles, and sinking to this level only poisons the well for productive discussion. Wikipedia is built on WP:CONSENSUS, not insults. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A one or two sentence summary about the Commissioner's Court and the context/reaction of the lawyer in San Marcos Mercury said is relevant, for the reasons given. It would be undue weight to give a paragraph about it, but it's a sourced event directly relating to the history of the temple since 2012. I'll update it as per what the lawyer actually said and the context in which he said it. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A15F:40C0:CD96:DD5E (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It currently has a paragraph, though, and that paragraph is now even longer. By expanding the coverage even further without any additional sources the article is presenting this event as much greater significance than is supported by sources. That's my point: the source is very minor, and fairly representing this would need substantially more weight. The only way I can see to fix this is to find additional reliable sources explaining Radha Madhav Dham's role. Even additional sources establishing that this was a real controversy in Hays County would be a starting point. This issue isn't about Diwakari Devi, who isn't otherwise mentioned in this article, this is about the temple. The op-ed barely mentions the Temple at all. The minutes of the meeting itself list only a single very routine sentence. Grayfell (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Lacking additional neutral sources, I have again removed it. A WP:RFC or similar may be necessary if this is again challenged. Grayfell (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I added an additional source. As stated previously, it was published in primary sources and secondary sources, discussed by a Texas State Bar Attorney which is a more reliable source than most of the other sources in this article who don't fact check. The additional source discusses the relevance of the event to the community. I will try to shorten it a bit more, but it's short enough to convey reliable and notable history of the temple since 2012 and well sourced without giving undue weight. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A15F:40C0:CD96:DD5E (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I shortened it a bit more, to avoid arbitrary accusations of undue weight. Removing it is completely arbitrary, as we have discussed above. I summarized the context in your own words, which is important to understand the relevence. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A15F:40C0:CD96:DD5E (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

To summarize the reasons it should be included:

- It's backed up by primary sources, along with secondary sources including a published article piece by an Texas State Bar attorney which is more reliable than most of the other sources in the whole article

- Undue weight has no application here. Undue weight would imply that a major portion of the article was dedicated to it, whereas it's 2 sentences

- A hindu temple leading a prayer at the Commissioner's Court is highly notable in and of itself

- Most importantly, it's a part of the temple's history since 2012 and there is an attempt to give the impression there is no history since 2012. The fact that you said, "padding out" implies that you believe there's no history since 2012

- You initially said, "Hays thing seems supremely trivial" in the edit summary. "Seems" implies that you hadn't really read it. Then you just looked for inapplicable Wikipedia policies to justify deleting it and to win the argument. Deleting first, then throwing out policies to justify wanting to delete isn't proper etiqette in any setting, let alone here

- No applicable reason given to delete it

- You added multiple other paragraphs in the intro of the article which you can see have no application to the temple itself, and which goes against previous consensus which is recorded above, and also brings up the undue weight argument. This shows your lack of adherence to acceptable Wikipedia norms.

- It all boils down to what encyclopedia readers would expect to read. They would want the history in the last 6 years.

- I can give many other arguments as needed 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:CDC9:D28B:1C96:1E11 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I've read the sources, and I don't accept the argument put forth. I've tried very hard to explain why I don't think it belongs, and also, I'm not the first person to remove this. It's been removed multiple times since it was first added. Either we fundamentally disagree, or you do not understand what I am saying. Either way, perhaps additional input would be helpful, such as WP:RFC. Using my talk page comments in the article is very silly, and ignores the context of my words and my intent.

There is no indication this is notable by itself, nor that it's a reflection on this specific temple. This was a routine event which is substantially similar to ones that have happened in many regions. These invocations are typically offered on a first-come-first-serve basis for religious organizations, such as in Montgomery County, and in King, North Carolina as a couple of equally mundane examples. The additional mention from the (now defunct?) Vrindavan Times lacks enough information to even attempt to validate as a reliable source, but it strongly appears, from what little I could find, that it was affiliated with the JKP, making it non-neutral. If you think it's substantial enough to support this, you may want to try and point to an indicator of fact-checking and editorial oversight, or a reputation for accuracy from outside observers, per WP:RS. Perhaps WP:RSN might be useful.

Emphasizing that he's a Texas State Bar Attorney is verbose and slightly misleading, since it would convey the same thing to just say "lawyer". Regardless, it's an editorial republished from his own blog, and he only barely even mentions the temple at all, never by name, and only in passing as part of a largely unrelated point. It is not particularly reliable for this point.

As for the additional paragraphs in the lead, multiple substantial sources from national and international news outlets have linked this temple's history to the criminal activity of its founder. This coverage has spanned years. It's not productive to pretend that's somehow parallel to a one-time local op-ed in an obscure website about a routine event with no further coverage. If you want to discuss those additions, a new talk-page section should be started for that. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

First off, we can agree it's at least not original research. It's part of the temple's history since 2012, apart from which there is the impression there's no history since then. The other news relating to Swami Prakashanadn Saraswati has no connection to the temple. For example, if the Swami had a connection to the temple, the accusers would be entitled to sue. But there is no evidence of an implication of the temple at all in any of it - nothing. There have been no cases of litigation against the temple, as in, for example, the Catholic Church where the organization itself was implicated in a coverup or was guilty by fact that the clergyman was affiliated with the organization. So the case has nothing to do with the temple and Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has a separate article. It would akin to the builder of a shopping center being accused of something where he no formal connection to it. Even more so since it has new management. As for the Hays County Commissioner's Court info, it is an event which happened and was discussed in secondary sources and has some significance as per my earlier points, and the lawyer expressed an opinion that related to the temple's place in society and history. The coverage given in the article has a due weight appropriate to the significance of the event and the opinion of the lawyer. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As I said, if you want to discuss the content in the lead about the criminal conviction of the temple's founder, you should start a new talk page section. I have responses to what you are saying, but we need to handle that in its own place. Even after all this, we still haven't resolved whether or not to include the paragraph about the invocation, so mixing in another, much more complicated, much more controversial issue in with this one will not work. I am happy to discuss how to handle this, and I agree that it does need careful attention, but this section isn't the way to do that.

Yes, it's part of the temple's history, and it's not original research, but that's not the only thing to consider. Not every aspect of the temple's history belongs in this article. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, or a platform for promotion, so we must use independent sources to assess due weight. It was only barely discussed by a single potentially reliable secondary sources of limited scope. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS when assessing sources, and this source only mentions the temple in passing as part of a largely unrelated point. I strongly do not agree that we should include this just to reassure readers that the temple was still open as of 2013. There are several reasons I think this is a mistake, but one is that mentioning this event isn't accomplishing that. This event was not held at the temple, and it's not clear from any source how closely it was connected to the temple, as opposed to being the work of Diwakari Devi. It was a three minute prayer held several years ago, also, and there is absolutely no sources saying that this was of any lasting significance. Grayfell (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not indiscriminate information. It's one piece of information in the temple's history, and significant that a Hindu temple was invited to speak at the Commissioner's Court at all. The article specifically notes the temple's involvement. Prayers may be offered at Commissioner's Court, but the significance is that this temple gave a prayer. There is no requirement by wikipedia for the source to specifically state that it was lasting significance - in those exact words - or to include every possible text; and there are enough sources already. The fact that it happened at all is a lasting significance (and a possible step towards other diverse organizations leading prayers). That fact is implied by the article, which you admit. The information places the temple in a certain context of history and society which is value-added to an encylopedia. There is an arbitrary gap in the temple's history from 2012 - present which doesn't make sense and deleting these sentences are arbitrary with no valid reason given. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is it significant, though? Because a source says it happened? It seems like you are saying it should be included because its significant, and it's significant because it happened. That's not nearly enough to be persuasive. The article also doesn't specifically note the temple's involvement, it notes it in passing. It doesn't even mention it by proper name. That's the opposite of specific. Grayfell (talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Significant because it happened, is well sourced, and reliably sourced (legal opinion rather than a half-baked journalists opinion); and places the temple in it's context in history, and there's no valid reason to delete it apart from an arbitrary not wanting it to be there and a blanking of the history since 2012. And was flagged based on a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what "undue weight" actually means. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Someone else is free to discuss the Swami issue if they have a strong opinion - I don't have the time or strong opinion. But, there's no reason, and none given, to delete this sourced, reliable, historically relevant and of due weight information. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, think of it this way: Is the only outside sign of activity from the largest Hindu temple in the United States over the past four years this single prayer by a single member somewhere else? This is almost like damning with faint praise. It's minor enough that mentioning a detail like this at all is almost conspicuously mundane. What about the 3+ years since that invocation, also? Grayfell (talk) 05:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's one more point to add to my list above: You misrepresented what "undue weight" means. It doesn't mean just blanking less important information. It means that facts are discussed to the degree of importance to the overall subject. The Commissioner's Court history isn't the most significant fact about the temple; but it should be treated to a suitable extent compared to its significance to the overall topic, especially when it's written by a lawyer and meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. It's clearly not a fringe belief or idea. It has two sentences, which is the extent it needs to be discussed to be relevant to the topic. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:TPG. Please post comments in chronological order and indent your comments to differentiate them from the person you are responding to. Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite sure there's a tonne of info out there. I will improve the history section when I get a chance. The commissioner's court is a good place to start, though... wikipedia being a work-in-progress... since it's the most tangible and relevant and readily meets the requirements for inclusion commensurate to due weight. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 06:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There is dozens if not hundrends - but not tangible enough for an encyclopedia. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 06:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

An op-ed by a lawyer isn't a legal opinion, and saying "half-baked journalists opinion" suggests a deep misunderstanding of Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia. This project is a reflection of reliable sources. That's the whole point of an encyclopedia. The reliability of a source is based on WP:RS which strongly favors editorial oversight and other factors. This means that journalists tend to be reliable in a way involved parties are not. Expert opinions are treated as WP:OPINIONs. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia most strongly favor secondary sources. This lawyer isn't a secondary source for his own opinion.

These event listings are highly promotional and lack a byline or any further commentary, which means they are almost certainly press-releases. Press releases are not independent of the temple. Can you find anything better? Grayfell (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing you with the "half-baked" comment when you said that San Marcos journalists aren't reliable and don't fact check. This was a secondary source which is an op-ed by lawyer which in Wikipedia terms is more reliable than a bad journalist. You misrepresented what "undue weight" means. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:A5C5:92C0:7095:4CF5 (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)117.212.42.136 (talk) 16:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that. I believe in arguing based on Wikipedia policy, not in throwing out comments like that. I'm an academic writer and most of Wikipedia's policies are based on accepted academic practices. Grayfell doesn't know the nuances of this policy. The fact that he said "damning with faint praise" is proof of the psychology of how he views this article and Wikipedia in general - information is little more than a way to praise or condemn the subject. You cannot view articles that way. You have to start from a neutral position. Whereas I am looking to improve the quality of the encyclopedia based on accepted academic practices. I never said anything about praising or damning a subject. The subject of the article is notable enough to have it's own page on Wikipedia, hence this information is relevant and notable and backed by independent third party sources. My main argument is that he deleted the information first, then looked for ways to justify it, flip-flopping along many different arguments (and misrepresenting Wikipedia policy) as though I can't see through it. You cannot approach academia in that way. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:C819:5E61:820F:8847 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)117.212.42.136 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not crying, so not to worry. The arguments I gave are tight. BTW Your input on Wikipedia is no better than his/hers. Have a detailed look at the policies and guidelines before engaging in edits and discussions. [17] 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:90A5:973E:CD89:6D33 (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

And everyone should remember the "Use common sense" guideline [18]. I think Grayfell has got so caught up in policies to justify deleting it, he/she has lost perspective about what the aim is here. He/she hasn't given any common sense rationale for deleting and has instead resorted to splitting policy hairs (and misinterpreting the policies at that, and flip-flopping between arguments). I've explained my common sense rationale repeatedly - The subject is notable, it's history is notable and there's no reason to blank the history since 2012 when there are reliable sources of information. Information isn't the only reason to include the paragraph. It ultimately boils down to the question of, does it add value to the wikipedia article? It's value-addition to the article is the interesting fact itself (it could be a fact of the day on Wikipedia; a Hindu temple leading a prayer in the Commissioner's Court is fairly interesting and notable), and also the value it offers by placing the temple in it's context in history and society as discussed in secondary sources. The source itself is fine, neutral, reliable, and backs up info in primary sources and the subject matter is treated as per it's due weight. It's certainly not the most notable thing in the history of the temple, and that's why 2 sentences suffice. The minority Hindu community in the USA doesn't get much mainstream press, so it's fairly significant. Community news would suffice in many cases to get a news perspective of the Hindu community. BTW, here are a few others recent sources which discuss the temple, [19], [20]. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:90A5:973E:CD89:6D33 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

As I said, that editor has been repeatedly blocked for making personal attacks, making this block evasion. Don't stoop to their level. That's not just advise, that's based on Wikipedia's policies. Comment on content, not contributors, and kindly refrain from speculating about my personal psychology. If you are familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, you should already know that. I will respond in a moment. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. I've commented on content and it's value to the article and conformance to Wikipedia policy. QED. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:F005:82EC:20E5:D11E (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You've speculated about the "psychology of how he views this article and Wikipedia in general". Please try to remember that there's another person on the other side of the screen.

My comments about "damning with faint praise" were in direct response to your comments that this helped fill-in the gap in history. You have said you who want to include this point to clarify that the temple is still operating, and I'm trying to explain why I don't think that's a very good choice for how to do that. That's why I mention damning with faint praise; it's because I'm trying to answer what I see as your concerns. Is that justification for calling my competence into question? Does approaching this from another angle justify calling me a flip-flopper? We are both working together to improve this article, right? Please remember to assume good faith.

Your comments about this being "fairly interesting and notable" demonstrate the issue I have with this item. That may be an accurate assessment, but Wikipedia uses sources for this kind of thing, not editorial opinion. The one usable source is weak by RS standards. Reliable? Maybe. Secondary? Sure. It's still a very, very minor passing mention in an obscure article about something else. I think you agree that those many additional recent sources you've found are, as you put it, not tangible enough for an encyclopedia. The invocation has the same problem: The op-ed spends even less space to discuss the temple to a smaller audience than these event listings. I'm not interested in going around in circles anymore, or trying to take the high-ground by tip-toeing around being called a "moron" and a "maniac". If you still insist this belongs, we should have an WP:RFC and be done with it. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

There are primary and secondary sources to demonstrate that it's "fairly interesting and notable". The fact that a secondary source discusses it, and backs the primary sources, is enough to pass the Wikipedia bar on inclusion. Wikipedia doesn't require a secondary source to discuss a secondary source. In that case, you can keep saying another source is required to validate previous sources. One source is enough. There are four sources. One may be a community source but it clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject to this niche community. There is almost no mainstream press in the USA relating to the Hindu American community. The San Marcos Mercury source isn't completely dedicated to the temple, but it deals with the subject sufficiently to back the information and context of the temple in history. It's a niche topic, and the treatment of the sources certainly meets the due weight clause. I don't claim this is the final version. It may be updated as more sources become available but as it stands, it adds value to the article and meets all the requirements of inclusion in Wikipedia. QED 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:F005:82EC:20E5:D11E (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then, WP:RFC it is. Grayfell (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Library of Congress source

This listing for a photo held by the Library of Congress is currently being used for the lead statement that the organization is in Hays County on 200 acres of land. As far as I know, nobody is disputing that point, and this would be a relatively weak source for that, anyway. While this might be a helpful external link in lieu of an image on Commons, as a source it not really doing much, so I am moving it to that section pending further discussion. Grayfell (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it might be possible to copy that image over to Commons, as it appears the photographer has released her work to the public domain: [21] Grayfell (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The image was already in Commons in TIF format, which was a minor hassle. I've uploaded a converted and reduced version. There were a couple more, which I've tagged at Commons:Category:Radha Madhav Dham if anyone is interested. Grayfell (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

RFC: Should an invocation at a county court be mentioned in the article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

After 67 days and extremely limited participation by the community, the only way to close this RfC in policy is to close it as no consensus. Remaining open is not likely to add any clarity to the discussion. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:19, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Radha Madhav Dham is a Hindu temple in Hays County Texas. Should it be mentioned that in 2013 at least one invocation (prayer) was given by Diwakari Devi, the leader of this temple, to the Hays County Commissioners Court? This information is supported by the court's own routine minutes (and the court's video of the meeting, which includes the invocation), and two additional sources:

• Hankins, L.W. 2013. How Hays County government promotes religion - This is an opinion by a lawyer in the San Marcos Mercury a local paper or website. The article mainly deals with 1st Amendment issues and mentions the temple briefly, but not by name. This opinion appears to have been republished from The Texas Freethought Journal, which appears to be name the lawyer uses for his own blog.
• Diwakari Devi of Radha Madhav Dham gives Invocation at Hays County Court. archived link from The Vrindavan Times which now appears defunct but was a paper or website serving Vrindavan, the town in India which is the location of the temple's organization, JKP. I cannot find enough information on this source to confidently assess its reliability, but it appears to be affiliated with the JKP.

The argument above has been exceedingly long, but

• Points for inclusion are:

That it helps establish that the temple is still active after changing its name in 2012 following an unrelated controversy

Without this, there would be nothing listed in the history section following 2012

That it's of interest as part of the temple's history, and that a Hindu invocation in a Texas court is itself noteworthy

(I have listed my extensive arguments below (will try to make in more concise soon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:98DD:9FBB:2DF9:1D1D (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC) )

• Points against are:

The sources are poor for establishing this as being historically significant or noteworthy, as they are either involved or passing mentions.

The sources may not be entirely reliable.

Inclusion of this detail may be considered promotional, since it's adding length by including a routine detail outside of due weight.

The temple's recent history immediately prior to this invocation is very controversial for unrelated reasons explained in the article and at Prakashanand Saraswati. This doesn't reflect on this invocation other than as, mentioned above, an indicator of continuing activity. The majority of useful sources I found are about that controversy. The remainder were mostly routine event listings and similar or comments about size and architecture of the temple. I did not find any other usable sources mentioning this invocation. Grayfell (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• As the one who wrote the RFC, I Oppose inclusion of this content. I do not believe the sources are strong enough to include this routine event. If this was a significant controversy, neutral, secondary sources should be found which comment on it, not just an opinion piece. If this was in some other way of encyclopedic significance, neutral sources should be found which contextualize why. Grayfell (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• I Approve inclusion of this content. I have given my arguments above on why it should be kept and I will summarize them here. My arguments both deal with the content itself and pointing out fallacious arguments that were used by Grayfell to remove it. In my capacity as an award-winning academic writer, I raise the following arguments:

- The reason for deletion given initially by Grayfell was: "seems trivial" (on the edit summary page). "Seems" indicated that he/she hadn't read it or thought about it. Deleting first, then throwing out policies to justify wanting to delete isn't a good academic practice

- Grayfell has made other edits to the article which flout prior consensus on this talk page, including the consensus that the article is about the temple, which has never been implicated in any of the accusations, and whereas the Swami has no formal connection to it and has his own article

- The information under dispute is backed up by primary sources, along with secondary sources including a published piece by a Texas State Bar attorney which is more reliable than most of the other sources in the whole article

- The addition of the text is more valuable than just the facts it offers. The context provides valuable information too. The context is that a Texas State Bar Attorney raised some objections to prayers being said in the Commissioner's Court, although he characterizes the inclusion of the temple as a relatively benign step, recommending a more inclusive approach to furthermore include those of no faith. The article mentions temple leader Diwakari Devi's prayer at the Commissioner's Court and the temple is mentioned twice in the article in the context of the author's argument

- The disputed text was written by Grayfell. I updated it from the original by using his/her own words to maintain a level of consensus

- Greyfell was flip-flopping between different lines of argument, including the "undue weight" argument. Grayfell has applied the "undue weight" tag to the disputed text - therefore it can be concluded that undue weight is the primary argument against keeping the 2 sentences. In the argument, Grayfell gave the impression that undue weight means that you should delete it completely, whereas Wikipedia's policy is that diverse information should be included, but the treatment should be appropriate to the level of significance of that information. This information is summarized in 2 sentences, which is appropriate in the context of the whole page

- It seemed to me that Grayfell deleted it first and then split hairs about policy without using the common sense criteria, and therefore, I felt that Grayfell lost sight about what the aim was, and was more concerned with winning the argument than building an encyclopedia. My common sense criteria for inclusion is this: If the subject of the page is notable, and if it's history section is notable, then there's no reason to blank the history since 2012 when there are reliable sources of information to back up the content

- The history section since 2012 is blank. It seems there is no history since then, a reader/researcher will get an incomplete picture of the subject matter. Did the temple come to an end in 2012? As proof of that, Grayfell suggested I was trying to "pad out" the history. If Grayfell is typical of a casual reader, the impression received from the article is that there is no substance to the history in the past 5 years

- A Hindu temple leading a prayer at the Commissioner's Court is highly notable in and of itself. There is almost no coverage of the Hindu American Community in the mainstream press. It's a niche community and most of the news is in community publications, newsletter and articles. Given the "due weight" context, the coverage of the Commissioner's Court is fairly significant to the topic in question as there are four sources, with a mix of primary and secondary

- It's value-addition to the article is the interesting fact itself (it could be a "Did you know" on Wikipedia; a Hindu temple leading a prayer in the Commissioner's Court is interesting and notable), and also the value it offers by placing the temple in its context in history and society as discussed in secondary sources

- The sources themselves are fine, neutral, reliable, and secondary sources back up info in primary sources; and furthermore, the subject matter is treated as per its due weight. It's certainly not the most notable thing in the history of the temple, and that's why 2 sentences suffice. Grayfell implied that further secondary sources may be needed to validate current secondary sources

- Grayfell suggested I was "damning [the temple] with faint praise" when I said there wasn't a lot of other published material about the history of the temple since 2012. The idea of the subject matter being "damned" or "praised" indicated to me a bias in Grayfell's approach to the topic. The implication I got is that articles are edited based on whether the information damns or praises the subject; whereas in reality, information is based on how factual, sourced, reliable and neutral it is. Grayfell is clearly a season Wikipedian, but that doesn't me that there is no bias in relation to topics. As it happened, I subsequently found many articles about the history of the temple since 2012, which may or may not be substantial. Some are in community publications of the Indian American Community, but Grayfell said "no" to them all (although I hadn't argued for their inclusion). The additional sources are not limited to: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

- One of the flip-flopping lines of argument that Grayfell presented was that San Marcos Mercury is an unreliable source and their journalists don't do fact checking; hence, the information should be deleted. Later it was discussed that the article was actually a piece by a Texas State Bar attorney. Then Greyfell said that articles by attorneys are less reliable than articles by journalists. I subsequently reminded Greyfell about his/her previous statement that San Marcos Journalists are unreliable, and therefore the piece by the attorney may be more reliable than the other sources in this Wikipedia article

- Another source by San Marcos Mercury is used in the article. If that source is fine for Grayfell, then so should this

- In an earlier argument, I said that a source by a Texas State Bar attorney is more reliable than an article by a "half-baked journalist". Missing the irony, Grayfell said that my comment about "half-baked" journalist showed that I didn't understand the value of journalistic writing. I reminded him/her that it was he/she who criticized San Marcos Mercury journalists and I was just paraphrasing

- Whether or not the San Marcos Mercury source is an Editorial Opinion is subjective. But Wikipedia's policy is that editorials are perfectly fine as long as it's cited in the correct way. A secondary source by a specialist meets Wikipedia guidelines; a source by a member of the legal community, on a legal topic, is definitely noteworthy. Furthermore, it's a secondary source which backs up primary sources. QED

- I added an additional source after Grayfell deleted the content. Grayfell indicated that it might be a community source of the Hindu community, although that is debatable. If it is, then it clearly demonstrates the notability of the subject to this niche community and thus meets the "due weight" clause as it pertain to this community. If it's notable to the community then it's notable for the history section

- I don't claim this is the final version. It may be updated as more sources become available, but as it stands, the inclusion adds value to the article and meets the bar for inclusion in Wikipedia. It may not be perfect, I'm not perfect, Grayfell's not perfect, but Wikipedia is a work in progress. There is no need for a blanket deletion of content which is relevant to the particular section of this article

- In addition to being a relevant fact, it establishes the context of the temple in the U.S society and history as a whole. If the history section has nothing after 2012, the clear impression being given is that there is no history of the temple from that year onwards. Almost 5 years have passed since the last history entry, and it would be a POV-bias to attempt to keep it that way

- While the San Marcos Mercury article doesn't make the temple the central theme, it's covered sufficiently as per due weight and furthermore, there are other primary and secondary sources to be combined with it

- Grayfell asked for additional sources which show the lasting consequences of the temple's prayer at the Commissioner's Court. Asking for this is arbitrary and exotic and outside the scope of Wikipedia's bar for inclusion

- Deleting it was a completely arbitrary and un-thought-out decision

- There has been a whole lot of hair splitting on tiny details without looking at the overall picture

- If there are no applicable reasons given to delete it, I argue that it should be kept

• Bonus Point- What does notability mean? What does it mean for the Commissioner's Court incidence to be notable enough to be mentioned? Wikipedia policy itself defines it as: "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". This is in relation to articles about People, but there is a congruence with this, to show that the Hindu temple leading a prayer in a court is significant, interesting and unusual enough to be mentioned. See [29]

2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:84A4:BE8C:9D05:A77C (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

10,000b is a summary? This is impractically long, and the entire point of this RFC is to discuss a potential change to the article, not re-litigate past edit-history. Could you summarize your response to the question being asked more succinctly, please? Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You're still tweaking this? Who is the intended audience? This is redundant, unrealistic, and bordering on disruptive. I've already responded to most these veiled accusations above, should I do that again here making this even longer and more redundant? Who on Earth would read that? This RFC was to ask other volunteers to give some of their time to provide another perspective on something. This isn't a trial by jury. If you want to continue our discussion above, you are free to do so above. It hasn't gone anywhere. That's not what this is for. Please respond to the question. Not my behavior, not what you think my beliefs are, not what you think my motives are... Please just summarize the reason you think this paragraph should be included. 11,000 bytes is far, far too much for this to be a practical way to improve the article. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Was this the first such Hindu invocation in Texas? I'm inclined to say include if so, leave out if no. These prayers and invocations are quite routine in general, but if it's a first, that's something. --BDD (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, no sources claim this is the first for Texas (or for the specific county, for that matter). There are 254 counties in Texas, and I assume they all have commissioners courts, not to mention other courts, so this would be potentially significant, but extremely tedious for sources to research. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's the key point, BDD. As per Wikipedia's notability guideline, notability means, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". This is remarkable, significant, interesting and unusual enough to warrant a mention in the article, especially in relation to the subject's history section. There are no other citations of a Hindu prayer being said at a Commissioner's Court in the entire country, let alone Texas or this county. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:B128:9675:A3C:3305 (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. Maybe in bodies specifically called a commissioners' court, but see also the statewide legislature in Nevada or this county in Illinois. So no, I would say not to include this information unless we can verify that this is a first. --BDD (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It's the first of any prayer service by Hindus in Texas, at the very least, and therefore fairly significant. There is no Wikipedia policy which says something should be the first of something in the USA. That would be an arbitrary argument to enforce. There are no other sources which discuss any Hindu prayers in Texas courts, and therefore I believe it meets the bar of notability, and therefore inclusion. At the very least, it's the first one to garner any media attention. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:59E8:38D2:F38F:880A (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Setting aside the weight of this media attention, how do we know that it's the first Hindu prayer service (in a court) in Texas? We do not have any sources for that claim, only speculation. Sources do not really say that it's significant at all. Making that claim without a source is original research. The lack of any sources for another court is insufficient for this claim, as that could just as well support that this is not significant enough to be documented by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

BDD, I'm not sure whether you read the arguments above, or whether you read the statement under discussion. The statement under question is, "On November 5th, 2013, leader of Radha Madhav Dham, Diwakari Devi, led the prayer service during the opening session of the Hays County Commissioners Court.[25][26][27][28] The Hays County Commissioners Court's decision to hold prayer services raised controversy with Texas State Bar Lawyer Lamar W. Hankins, although he characterizes the inclusion of the temple as a relatively benign step, recommending a more inclusive approach to furthermore include those of no faith". While it's a fact that it's the first Hindu prayer in a court in Texas, that is not being discussed as a point to include in the article. It's true by virtue that there are no other sources in the literature that discuss a Hindu prayer in Texas. It would be speculation and original research to suggest that there could be, by some stretch, another such prayer in Texas. The fact that it's a "first of its kind" is sufficient to establish the bar of inclusability in the article; although it's not being argued that the Wikipedia article should state that it's the first such prayer. That would certainly demonstrate notability. However there are other ways to establish notability other than the "first of its kind" argument. My argument is that it's notable because it's mentioned in secondary articles - the only Texas Hindu prayer mentioned in secondary sources - as well as primary sources, and it's a sufficiently significant event in the history of this temple to meet the bar of includability. The article is about the temple - not about Texas, not about the USA and USA courts. It certainly wouldn't be notable as per due weight on an article about Texas. But it is sufficiently notable as per the subject matter of this article. What's your opinion about this line of argument? 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:59E8:38D2:F38F:880A (talk) 11:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The motivation for inclusion is that the history section of this article is entirely blank since 2012, and this is a notable and representative piece of information that places the temple in history and the wider society, and would be of interest to an encyclopedia reader. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:59E8:38D2:F38F:880A (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No reply from BDD about my last question. His feedback was good, but it wasn't relevant to the statement in question. In light of getting very few answers about this, I think I'll ask the question at another list. It's not exactly a "Religion and philosophy" question, it's a legal/Government or other issue. 2A02:8084:A5C1:4080:4929:EBD3:9BE6:18DE (talk) 12:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. Better sourcing would be helpful. Considering current events in the U.S., it's quite notable that a Hindu group led a Hindu prayer in a court in Texas. Even if this were considered only local news, without the broader relevance, it's still notable for such a group. We aren't arguing for WP:Notability for an article, only for inclusion of a relevant event in this particular group's history. First Light (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Which local news sources actually discuss this? There is only one passing mention in an op-ed. What do current event in the US have to do with this? If it's notable, where are the sources explaining why it's notable? Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the op-ed mention alone is notable. Just my opinion, along with pointing out the obvious regarding current events — your mileage may vary. Again, keep in mind that we are not arguing WP:NOTABILITY for an article, but only for inclusion in the subject article. So there is no requirement that the sources must explain why it is notable for this article. Whether information should be included in an article is only a judgment call among editors. With sincere respect for your opinion, you and whoever closes this discussion now has my opinion. First Light (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but I do not see the connection to current events as obvious, especially since the invocation happened in 2013. If there is a connection, it needs to be documented by sources instead of being assumed. As far as WP:NOTABILITY, I don't think anyone else has actually brought that guideline up. We've been discussing notable as a basic concept. Notable implies that something is worth being noted, and non-notable events are by definition not encyclopedic (per WP:NOT if a policy is necessary). The only record of this event are WP:PRIMARY sources, and a single op-ed which doesn't actually mention the name of the temple. This RFC expired last month, FYI. Grayfell (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2017 (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.

Note

− I have indefinitely blocked the person currently using 117.206.211.151. [30] This may help editors more quickly deal with future disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@NeilN:, similar removals seem to be coming from nearby IP's 117.207.191.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 117.207.187.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page semiprotected

One month. Please see Special:Diff/792273423 for the background. EdJohnston (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)