Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gunatit Samaj

The text written for the Gunatit Samaj seems to be highly biased, vindictive, antagonistic. It does not conform to the standard of 'information' which needs to be displayed on a site such as Wikipedia. The text is pure 'hearsay' and lacks concrete & supporing evidence for the claims made, thus the text should be edited and changed to the following:

The Gunatit Samaj was established in 1996 under the instruction and inspiration received by the BAPS Guru at the time Yogiji Maharaj. The Gunatit Samaj was formed by two brothers, Dadubhai (Kakaji) & Babubhai (Pappaji) who were excommunicated from BAPS due to the nature of the work they were tasked to do.

Yogiji Maharaj expressed a wish in accordance to the Vachanamrut Last Section of Gadhada No. 26 for women to also dedicate their lives to the service of God (like their male counterparts as Sadhus) & achieve a state of transcendence. This wish had been conveyed to Pappaji and Kakaji in 1952 after a question was posed by Pappaji to Yogiji Maharaj regarding the daughters of Sonaba (A founder of the Gunatit Samaj) who wanted to lead a life dedicated to God.

Yogiji Maharaj had given his blessings regarding what path the two sisters should take and had answered "What is wrong if these sisters want to devote their lives to God? God will ensure that this will happen, and further more you are to undertake this task.”.

Thereafter, a separate establishment was established in Vallabh Vidyanagar by Pappaji, his brother; Kakaji and Sonaba whose daughters were the first two to join the establishment ordained in the saffron-clad, they were then followed by two others and a total of 51 women had joined the establishment in 1966. Heavy opposition was received from members of the BAPS sect and as a result, Pappaji and Kakaji were excommunicated from BAPS by trustee members.

Many were also in support of the establishment for the uplifment of women leading their lives as ascetics and thus 40 Sadhus initiated by Yogiji Maharaj who expressed support of Kakaji and Pappaji had also left. The youth in the Akshar-Purushottam Hostel (Chhatralay) in Vallabh Vidyanagar had also been asked to vacate due to showing support and taking the words of the two brothers as the commands of Yogiji Maharaj. Despite efforts between Kakaji, Pappaji and senior saints at BAPS a firm resolution couldn't be met.

The Samaj (Community) constitutes of four factions (the ordained saints, ordained sisters, ordained brothers, and ordained householders). Each faction is respectively led under a spiritual head (who is believed to be the present manifestation of Swaminarayan). The Gunatit Samaj now spans worldwide with centres in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, France and many other countries.

References

GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Major branches edit summary

I have thoroughly reviewed all the edits in the Major Branches section and I have given my rationales for the further edits I have done. I hope you all take the time to understand each point and why the edit was made.

[Explanations per subsection moved to subthreads, to keep a readable overview. JJ 26 sept. 2020]

I hope you all take the time to understand and read through the rationale of all the edits I have made. Kevpopz I had mentioned that my thorough study of the available Swaminarayan scholarship has helped in formulating an NPOV article in hopes for a clear and thorough explanation of what the Swaminarayan Sampradaya is. Wikipedia is not a platform to debate which doctrine is correct vs incorrect. The edits I have made are driven by correcting the policy violations I have observed, improving the lack of readability, and extracting important information from reliable academic sources. If there are any edits in question, I’d like to request all users to engage on the talk page and propose alternatives instead of simply reverting or beginning an edit war. Thank you. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Introductory paragraph

The introductory paragraph is more focused on the Vadtal and Ahmedabad dioceses without giving context to the other branches of this tradition. WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV I’ve modified the content while still ensuring the crux of the information remains. The new edit summarizes why and how the two dioceses were created. As this is an introductory paragraph to the entire section, it should not solely be focused on Vadtal or Ahmedabad. I’ve added a little more context to also discuss Swaminarayan Gadi as well. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: at first sight: reasonable, except for the removal of the rights and duties of the acharyas, and the rationale for the BAPS to doubt those rights. The "crux of the information" has not remained here. Hatcher and Williams make quite clear that the duties of the acharyas involve far more than "administer his temple properties"; reducing their duties and rights to just "administering" is inaccurate. I'd include, either at the intro or at the respective sections:

Swaminarayan gave the acharyas of Ahmedabad and Vadtal gadi's the exclusive right to build and control temples,[5]:170 and the authority to perform the ritual of installation of the sacred images in the temples built in their dioceses and the ritual for the rededication of the images after the renovation of a temple.[1]:38[127] BAPS believes that authority is dictated by spiritual virtues rather than a hereditary lineage.[1]:59–60 According to the BAPS, important rituals of the sampradaya, such as the ordaining of swamis, and the installation of sacred images in the mandirs can be performed by the guru, being the rightfull successor of Swaminarayan.[1]:59–60

No rationale was given to remove this info from two solid sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

::See JJ's response [below] above. The acharays are not just administrators. That is a BAPS narrative. They have religious duties explicitly outlined. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What's more, "administer" is sourced to Iva Patel (2018). We've already discussed her before; she's not the best source. She writes:

He appointed his two nephews, Ayodhyaprasad and Raghuvir, to administer his temple properties. This action later started a hereditary line of succession.

No, not "later"; Swaminarayan himself instituted, at that moment, a hereditary line of succession. Including Patel but leaving out Williams and Hatcher is definitely WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. Compare Schreiner (2001), quoting from the SSJ:

... the regulation of succession by inheritance within the family which Sahajananda instituted (according to 4,24:12): 'For the sake of the thriving of the way of devotion, initiation by means of the sacred formula is required; therefor I shall establish the office of sacred teacher among the pure descendants of Dharma.'

Compare also Melton (2020):

He then installed them as acharyas (or preceptors) to head the movement [...] the acharyas, while primarily temporal leaders, had been assigned several essential spiritual functions, most notably the final act of installation of deity statues in a new temple and the reinstallation of the deities in older temples following major renovation. The acharyas also initiated candidates into the ascetic life as sadhus.

And Kim (2005):

Sahajanand Swami established n institutional structure that provided for the perpetuation of the swaminarayan satsang, the community of followers-in-truth.

Note also that an acharya is not an administrator, but "a preceptor or instructor in religious matters; founder, or leader of a sect." So, if anything, the sentence should say "to head his movement and guarantee the continuation of the satsang." An overview of functions would include the installation of deity statues and the initiation of sadhus. Four sources should suffice for this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Joshua Jonathan. Thanks for outlining the sources clearly. It is important to bring up that by definition, acharya is a spiritual leader and there are 3 sources that show spiritual responsibility. That is more then sufficient sources needed I feel Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

2. Vadtal-Ahmedabad section

In order to lessen undue weight to each branch and leaders, I’ve reduced the text yet maintained the information to ensure readers understands the who, when, why. There was redundancy in mentioning who was the appointed acharya by Swaminarayan for each diocese, my edit is more concise and is clear. Also, the sentence ‘At certain points in the Lekh…’ is copy-paste from Hatcher. Within the Major branches section this is another incident of copyright infringement, I believe this is the 3rd instance of copyright violation! I have placed a warning regarding this copyright.WP:COPYVIO There is an overemphasis on the Lekh and it is given undue weight. There was a reference to Vachanamrut Vadtal 18, however in this Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan only states that one should understand Ramanand’s guru to be Ramanuj and Swaminarayan as Ramanand’s disciple. Also the reference to Dharmakul is to Swaminarayan himself and the family of his father. It appears Swaminarayan is emphasizing one to understand the guru lineage but I did not see anything regarding moksha. I also did not see any reference of moksha and acharya in Gadhada 1-1.8 (I checked Gadhada 1.1 and 1.8, I was not sure which specific Vachanamrut you were referencing). Finally, including a note on the 1935 lawsuit, which is also placed in the BAPS section, is completely irrelevant to the statement it is placed after. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

There was a reference to Vachanamrut Vadtal 18, however in this Vachanamrut, Swaminarayan only states that one should understand Ramanand’s guru to be Ramanuj and Swaminarayan as Ramanand’s disciple. 'I also did not see any reference of moksha and acharya in Gadhada 1-1.8 (I checked Gadhada 1.1 and 1.8, I was not sure which specific Vachanamrut you were referencing).

Maybe we are reading different versions of the Vachnamrut because I know BAPS has their own version. Vadtal 18 Swaminarayan states…A follower should understand the tradition of the Dharma-Kul that I have established. Gadhada 1-1.8 clearly states…A devotee who has sought refuge in the Dharmakul will attain a brahmay body by the wish of god” In Gadhada I–57.1, Swaminarayan states “The knowledge of gods swarup (One's own form or true nature) and the knowledge of gods greatness are the two most extraordinary means to attain moksh.”

Shikshaprati 128, 133, 206 state "The Acharyas are the religious heads and they shall initiate male disciples according to Vedic rituals." "The wives of these Acharyas with the permission of their husbands, shall initiate, preach, and give the Mantra Diksha [...] to females disciples.” "Our followers who act according to these directions, shall certainly obtain the four great objects of human desire the disciplined life (dharma), material gain (artha), pleasure (kama) and salvation (moksha).

Satsangi Jeevan Volume 4 Chapter 81: My disciples shall worship only those images of god, which have been given to them by the Acharya of Dharmakul or installed by him…A person desiring moksha must accept the teaching of a guru born in the clan of Dharmadev with due reverence.

Nishkulanand Kavya Purushottam Prakash 37-40 , it states, "the Acharyas will give moksh to the souls. All followers obey and serve the Dharmakul. Being my sons, they are brahman and my bhaktas; and by serving them you shall earn happiness and all your wishes fulfilled. This is my command that is to stay permanently with them.” My followers should all believe that this is the final way to attain liberation [...] I shall live in the Acharyas forever. I am forever residing in them; I am in them, and they are in me.

Desh Vibhag Lekh: It the command to all sadhus, bhramacharis, and all satsangi’s, that for the purpose of kalyan you must obey and follow the acharyas of the dharmakul, and obey their. If you turn elsewhere will find that they will never find happiness in this world or the worlds beyond, and will experience immense distress and shall suffer extreme pains. (I.E. Shastriji Maharaj; Pramukh Swami; Jitendrapriyadasji Swami; Purushottampriyadasji Maharaj, etc)

Also the reference to Dharmakul is to Swaminarayan himself and the family of his father. It appears Swaminarayan is emphasizing one to understand the guru lineage but I did not see anything regarding moksha.

:You are entitled to your interpretation of Dharmakul but family of his father would include his two other sons who the acharayas came from. Also the BAPS worships the dharmakul at their sarangpur temple which includes the who whole fam. https://www.baps.org/Global-Network/India/Sarangpur/Mandir-Info.aspx Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

3. BAPS-section

The sentence ‘A lawsuit in 1935...’ in the BAPS section misrepresents the cited sources WP:SYNTH. The fact is that there was a lawsuit (Melton 2020, pg95) however Williams also states that the judge determined that Yagnapurushdas had not been legally excommunicated from the Vadtal diocese (Williams 2018, page 63-66) with the final decision that the BAPS swamis could not stay or visit those temples. The scholarship does not indicate that the BAPS swamis were attempting to operate out of the Vadtal or Ahmedabad diocese upon separating. I’ve removed the sentence ‘regarding Gunatitand Swami, the guru of his own guru…’, the sources cited here state nothing of Bhagatji Maharaj being the guru of Shastriji Maharaj. The idea that the lineage begins from Gunatitanand Swami is stated in the second paragraph to better capture the historical and theological context just as it has been done in the Swaminarayan Gadi section. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"A spiritual lineage of gurus" (introduction) and "followers believe Swaminarayan manifests through a lineage of Aksharbrahma Gurus" (BAPS-ection) is well-formulated; accurate; much better than "spiritual mode of succession." I was searching for a correct formulation after reading through the sources, and a BAPS-site, again; you captured the nuance I noticed regarding the BAPS-gurus. Well done. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

::[@Apollo1203] Then what do you suggest we put to let readers know that BAPS is in fact a legally separate institution from the Original Sampraday? Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

4. Swaminarayan Gadi section

The name used for the group in the scholarship is Swaminarayan Gadi therefore I have changed it back to that. The introductory sentences were poorly structured. The new sentence clearly states why, when, and who regarding the establishment of the Swaminarayan Gadi. In order to maintain neutrality and not give undue weight, the biographical description of Abji Bapa has been removed WP:UNDUE. The section is for a brief description of the branches not the biography of key members of the group. If the details of Abji Bapa and the history of Swaminarayan Gadi is notable, a new article should be created and a reader can navigate to that article for more details. Additionally, Penguin Books does not appear to be an academic publishing house and is a questionable source. WP:SOURCETYPES. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:Jewels of Gujarat, Volume II: Leading Global Gujarati Personalities. (2019). India: Maneesh Media and https://www.indiatimes.com/trending/social-relevance/swaminarayan-gives-prasad-using-mouth-tests-covid-19-positive-517760.html states the proper name. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

5. Gunatit Samaj section

Within Gunatit Samaj, the last sentence (“Although small in followers in comparison to the Vadtal…”) is a clear copyright violation. It is plagiarized word for word from Williams (2018) page 73. This is the 4th instance where Kevpopz has plagiarised. WP:PLAGARISM,WP:COPYVIO. I have placed a final warning on your page regarding this violation. I don’t think there is encyclopedic value for this article in added information on what members of Gunatit Samaj wear. I have removed that as it is not adding significant value to the article. WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:I get a little confused. Even if I am quoted and cited it's a copyright issue? The reason why what the Gunatit Samaj (Anoopam Mission) wears matters because their guru, Yogi instructed them to do so and is an identifying feature and the first Swaminarayan group to have sadhu's that can work jobs but still are sadhus. It is notable. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

6. Swaminarayan Gurukul section

Yet again, I noticed copy-pasted material from the sources used in the Swaminarayan Gurukul section. Simply changing one word does not free the sentence from copyright violation. I’ve re-worded the section attempting to use the same sources you had cited. Regarding the number of gurukuls, Williams 2018 states a number of gurukuls whereas the cited news article from 2017 claims 150 centers in the sampradaya. As Williams 2018 is an academic and reliable source (which everyone agrees to), I’ve removed the 150 gurukuls sentence and kept the numbers from Williams. Overall, I don’t entirely agree with keeping the Swaminarayan Gurukul section as it is not a prominent sect discussed in Swaminarayan scholarship like the major branches listed currently. However, in an effort to assume good faith I will not completely delete it or revert it. It appears that the group is still associated with the Ahmedabad and/or Vadtal diocese since they have not formally separated so it may make sense to move it within the Ahmedabad/Vadtal paragraph or even put this text in the Laxminarayan Dev Gadi Wikipedia page. Let’s see what the other editors think. Apollo1203 (talk) 01:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

:This is fine. Let’s see what the other editors think. Kevpopz (talk) 11:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"Systemic bias"

I understand your frustration that you have to repeat yourself and your points Joshua Jonathan as editors have repeatedly discussed the reliability of scholars' works irrespective of their affiliation/religion/etc. You note that Iva Patel incorrectly presents Gunatitanand Swami’s spiritual successorship as a historical fact. The Iva Patel article is published in an academic encyclopedia. Encyclopedias serve to summarize the scholarly work. As such what Iva Patel is presenting is scholarly consensus on the matter. The volume in which the article is published is part of Springer’s Encyclopedia of Indian Religions book series [1]. By questioning the accuracy of Iva Patel, Joshua Jonathan questions the integrity of Springer publishing. If you truly feel this publisher is biased and unreliable I invite you to open an rfc at the reliable sources noticeboard for the deprecation of Springer publishing. Furthermore the Bhatt and Pandya quotes cited do not state they are representing the BAPS POV. Unless of course you come to that conclusion through your interpretation and WP:SYNTHESIS. Please tell me you did not conclude that Bhatt is representing the BAPS POV simply because he cites Paramtattvadas. Pandya mentions “Swaminarayan Sanstha” not BAPS. A quick google search of the term revealed that sanstha translates to “the organization” as per the definition provided by Oxford Languages [2]. Perhaps the term organization here refers to the sampradaya as a whole or maybe specific branches. As you are no doubt aware, a few branches in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya other than BAPS also have the term sanstha in their name. I have googled the authors whose works have been questioned, namely, Iva Patel, Kalpesh Bhatt, Sadhu Paramtattvadas, and Samta Pandya. Based on their University and social media profiles their religious affiliations are unclear, however, they all appear to be of Indian origin, which Skubydoo has pointed out in the post they made using WP:BIAS. I read WP:BIAS, and understood Skubydoo's point. However, Joshua Jonathan, your response to this was to note that such an observation could result in getting Skubydoo blocked. I am curious as to what wikipedia policy and what rationale you have to tell Skubydoo not to make such an observation or risk getting blocked, and I would appreciate it if Joshua Jonathan can shed some more light on this point of his. Tale.Spin (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tale.Spin: framing my objections as a "racial bias" because the authors are Indian is a misrepresentation of my argument, and falsely accusing me of behavior which is deemed deeply rejectable by most people. I find it quite offensive and disturbing to be treated in such a way. Asking administrators Doug Weller and Vanamonde93, and user Kautilya3 for comments here, and better able to explain what's the problem with such a slur. See diff for the comment in question:

Joshua Jonathan has made some bizarre attempts to discredit I Patel and Paramtattvadas which is absurd to me since the works in question are published by Springer and Cambridge University respectively. You really can’t get more reliable and credible than that. I think the attempts to discredit specifically non-European scholars is part of Wikipedia’s systemic bias WP:BIAS. This practice of trying to assume a biased perspective of Indian writers (instead of creating the intellectual space to recognize scholarship from brown writers as valid, acceptable, and meaningful) and privileging European writers (as if they have no perspective at all and are inherently neutral, untainted, and superior) is extremely problematic. I was reading up on this systemic racial bias here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia.

Unless the sources are deprecated (WP:DEPS,) it is accepted on Wikipedia. Obviously, none of the sources I mentioned can be deprecated because they are published from the most reliable sources in the academic world. It’s so disappointing to see the racial bias on this talk page against some sources-- especially in an article for a figure in Hindu history known as a social reformer.

And this diff is my warning at the talkpage of User:Skubydoo.

Without bothering you with the details, the discussion boiles down to the fact that Skubydoo wanted to make a statement in the article which is a synthesis of selective sources, ignoring other sources which carry more weight. To quote myself:

I think that this makes amply clear that I. Patel stands out as a rare voice here in the way she brings a BAPS-belief as a statement of fact; she reads like a simplified paraphrasis of sadhu Paramtattvadas. Solely citing I. Patel does not suffice; especially not when it is stated with more nuance by Paramtattvadas, and not backed-up by Williams and Kim, who have dedicated decades of research to the Swaminarayan movemement.

See the quotes at Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#Further replies #2, which show the difference between

He introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance. This started a lineage of gurus.

and

According to the BAPS, Swaminarayan identified Gunatitanand Swami as "his eternal, ideal devotee, from whom his followers should seek spiritual guidance," and designated him to be his spiritual successor. Consequently, according to the BAPS, a lineage of gurus was established in succession to Gunatitanand Swami. (Willimas; Melton; Kim; Paramtattvadas; I. Patel; Packert)

Which, as noted before, is almost the same as what Skubydoo also wrote:

several branches believe that Swaminarayan remains incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus. Some branches believe this lineage to begin with Gunatitanand Swami.

Actually, Skubydoo's phrasing "incarnate through a lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus" is better than my phrasing "spiritual successor." This is also almost exactly what's now in the article, also thanks to Apollo1203 (see Talk:Swaminarayan Sampradaya#BAPS-section), who made the precise formulation that "followers believe Swaminarayan manifests through a lineage of Aksharbrahma Gurus":

According to a number of traditions, Swaminarayan introduced a spiritual lineage of gurus through which he keeps manifesting himself. BAPS adherents believe Swaminarayan introduced Gunatitanand Swami as his ideal devotee from which a spiritual lineage of gurus began reflecting the principle that a form of God who lives “before one’s eyes” is necessary for aspirants to attain moksha (liberation).

I trust that that part is solved by now. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:25, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

I do not have the time to get into this in detail, but I will not that when multiple scholarly works are discussing the subject, and their views are at odds with each other, we most certainly need to present all the available views. Also, I've worked with JJ for a while, and he most certainly does not exhibit a bias against Indian sources simply because they are Indian. Accusations of such bias are not a trivial matter, and if necessary, should be made in the appropriate forum with evidence; they do not belong here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. I think you are spot on and that is what JJ has been doing. Over the past few weeks his changes have made the claims on the page accurate to the sources and tried to represent the various view points by prefacing the claims to the branch associated with the view point. The page prior took branch specific quotes and represented it as the beliefs of the founder or all branches and I think JJ has done a very respectable job of adding clarity and properly laid out the conflict within the sources and how to properly and accurately represent the information. There is no bias here and as you mentioned, those accusations have no place here. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan, I am sorry you are upset. I did not accuse you of bias as a slur. In fact, I didn’t accuse you of anything. Therefore, I am surprised to see that you called what you said on my page a “warning.” Nevertheless, I think that discussing systemic bias is important. The systemic bias of Wikipedia is part of the editors and our edits. It’s a problem we all have to deal with together, and bringing awareness to this issue, I hope, can be cause for celebration and not offense. By continuously questioning each other and ourselves, Wikipedia’s systemic bias can be mitigated. By treating it as a slur, I think, we reduce opportunities for open discussion, and risk inadvertently perpetuating systemic bias.

After reading your response here, I think it’s possible that multiple users are talking over each other. With respect, I ask Joshua Jonathan and all editors to consider that none of the sources we have discussed (Melton, I Patel, Williams, Paramtattvadas, etc.) in regard to succession are historical in nature. They do not, and cannot, make historical claims. @Joshua Jonathan, it seems that you are concerned about the bias of religious perspectives overpowering the accurate, historical academic literature. If that is your concern, please know that I understand and share your concern. But, I don’t think this concern can be utilized here. The reason is not because there are “sides,” but because there is subjectivity. And this subjectivity is what I think I now understand, and which I want to share with you:

Different sects have different perspectives on the overall historical context of their beliefs. Academics, in an attempt to capture them, have sometimes stated them as fact. But, although you have wisely stated previously that

there are historical connections, which situate Swaminayaran in a historical and religious context, and deserve, nay need, to be mentioned to get a better understanding….

this is not what the current literature can do. None of the sources that have been discussed thus far are historical in nature. They are anthropological, comparative, and theological. Attempting to determine what actually happened, may not be possible with these sources, other than the general context provided by each source. For example, Melton has said: “Anticipating changes of the nature of the ascetic life, which would become widespread during the Hindu Renaissance, Swaminarayan informed the renunciates that their vows did not place them above manual labor and active service to the community.” (Melton, 92) I know that no one is going to add to the article that Swaminarayan anticipated how widespread renunciants would be in what Melton calls the Hindu Renaissance. So, we must understand each source within the context of the field in which they are published and the type of publication-- this does make things more complicated, but also may make things make more sense, as well.

I don’t think noting that the acharyas were appointed by Swaminarayan is problematic in any sect. Furthermore, during that time from what I have read, the acharyas were respected, revered, and part and parcel of the early tradition. (Melton 94-98) However, I do think that it is problematic-- outside of thinking about sect-perspectives and based on the sources-- to ascribe a specific kind of religious authority to the acharyas. Consider Melton:

In the early years of the movement, Swaminarayan operated as a charismatic leader with an assumed divine status, and made all the major decisions relative to belief and practice, policies, and administration. While Swaminarayan lived, he appointed the sadhus (the monks who had taken renunciate vows) to head the various temples, and further, also named the lay temple administrators who, unlike the sadhus, could handle money and interact with female members. The gradual separation of spiritual and temporal authority in the group led to the most important decisions relative to the succession of authority at the time of Swaminarayan’s death. (Melton, 92-92)

Melton states that the sadhus were the spiritual authorities but it does not make it clear which sadhus were authoritative and exactly over whom. This information is not available in this source. Although other sources, such as Williams mention the perspectives of various sects-- he is not a historian.

After reading more carefully through some of the talk page, it has become clear that there are times there is some agreement, but that agreement is obfuscated by the assumptions made about perspectives within the conversation. I have seen some users reject an idea and then later propose the same one, or vice versa. Removing our assumptions about others, as difficult as it may be, might help us see where we agree with each other. Managing our expectations about the historicity of sources which are not historical in nature will be even more helpful. Best wishes, Skubydoo (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Skubydoo (talk · contribs), you make some good points but just thought I would correct some information regarding the acharyas that you made in your statement. Basically, it is not true that all sects believe that the acharyas were established by Swaminarayan. The Shree Swaminarayan Gadi doesn’t acknowledge the legitimacy or validity of any acharya. They assert that Gopalanand Swami, who is unrelated to Swaminarayan, was the sole successor of Swaminarayan [1]. This clearly shows not all denominations in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya accept the Laxminaryan and Narnarayan Gadi’s claim that Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as acharyas. The Laxminarayan Gadi’s view is that acharyas are the descendants of Swaminarayan and a) administrative heads, b) spiritual leaders, and c) gurus [2]. These are just two examples that show the conflicting views on who and what the acharyas are. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not true. The Swaminarayan Gadi does a acknowledge the the Laxminaryan and Narnarayan Gadi’s claim that Swaminarayan appointed his nephews as acharyas. It is not a claim but it is written in every single scripture. The Gadi simply acknowledges that Gopalanand Swami was given authority per several scriptures and interpret he created an authority line that the Gadi followed per their guru. Please see here: https://www.swaminarayangadi.com/page.php?id=1224 Gottiyu (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Swamini vato

Resolved

I think that the Swamini Vato should be placed after the sacred biographies: first Swaminarayan, the common denominator, than branche-specific texts. The article should also clearly state which branches regard Gunatitanand as 'the first spiritual successor' (a formulation which needs correction, in the line of 'the first manifestation of Swaminarayan in a spiritual lineage of Aksar-gurus', paraphrasing out of my head Apollo120e's formulation), and which branches regard this text to be authoritative. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:49, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan That makes sense and the reorder would also maintain chronological order as the Satsangi Jivan is the official biography and was published before the Swamini vato. From what I can tell other branches do accept swamini vato as well but the original version of the text where as Baps has added to the original and republished their own. (going off what is on that books wiki page). But the reorder makes sense from a chronological perspective as well. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), regarding which groups regard this text as “authoritative” the Swamini Vato is published and accepted as a scripture by all the branches of the sampradaya.

Here are a few examples:

• Laxminarayan Gadi (Vadtal) - 1

• Kundaldham (affiliated with Laxminarayan Gadi)- 2

• Swaminarayan Gurukul - 3

• Hardiham/Sokdha - 4

• BAPS - 5, 6

The article does clearly state that BAPS regards Gunatitanand Swami as the first spiritual successor. However, based on Williams 2018 (page 73), “Gunatit Jyot also traces its origins to the BAPS lineage of Yogiji Maharaj through Babubhai Patel” Now, one can assume from this sentence that Gunatitanand Swami is considered in the lineage of Guntait Jyot but it is not explicitly stated. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

'When' Tags in Early Monasticism

@Joshua Jonathan:: I removed the 'when' tags from the 'Early monasticism' section. These tags are for “use when a lack of precision prevents you from understanding the material.” Within the context of the this section, it's clear the events for first tag occurred in the 1800s-1820s. For the second tag, the reference offers a specific date, June 30, 1807, and I feel it's irrelevant here. I hope that makes sense. Moksha88 (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@Moksha88: no, that does not make sense. What would make sense is to take those tags serious, and add that info to the article. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Image Diversification

Resolved

This was a point raised over 2 months ago and kind of fell of everyone's radar. The initial discussion and break down is on my sandbox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kbhatt22/sandbox. There are 9 images in the body of this article of which 8 originate from Baps. That's a solid 88%. The intent is to diversify the images to have some representation for the other branches instead of the images representing/promoting one branch. Try to be branch agnostic where we can, the best way for this is to try to pick images of things originally done by Swaminarayan himself. I looked through all the discussions and these were the only proposed revisions with actual images. Any one have any input or objection to the diversification? @Joshua Jonathan: wouldn't mind some fresh input as well if possible.

Proposed Aarti Image Update (Not sure which one is better. Thoughts?):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Aarti.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Nar-Narayan_Dev_Aarti_In_Kalupur_Mandir_-_First_Swaminarayan_Murti.jpg

Proposed Murti Image Update:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Gopinathji_Maharaj_Gadhada_Mandir.jpg

We could also replace the sketch image of the first swaminarayan temple with an actual image from the wiki catalog: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swaminarayan_Temple,_Ahmedabad#/media/File:Shree_Swaminarayan_Sampraday,_Ahmedabad.jpg

Thanks everyone. Kbhatt22 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kbhatt22 for bringing up this discussion again. Overall, the images should be relevant to the article's content (MOS:IMAGE RELEVANCE), since the article is about the Swaminarayan Sampradaya from its origins to the present day, I feel that it would not be right for the images to be limited to “things originally done by Swaminarayan himself” as you have stated.

Please see my Sanbox for the full mock up of the article with the proposed images.

Briefly here are my proposals for the images:

• The current arti image should be removed and since it will be difficult to find a high resolution branch agnostic image, we can disregard adding an arti image altogether. This will also make room for the additional images I have proposed below.

• Even though the arti image will be removed, the Practice section will still have an image of the boy doing puja. You are saying this image is BAPS specific, however, it is not specific to any branch as all Swaminarayan branches believe in performing puja and perform the ritual the boy is engaged in. I think it is a high-quality image and should be kept as representative of a wide-spread practice within followers of this sampradaya. While the image source may be BAPS, I feel it is visually branch-agnostic. If you disagree, could you point out what about the actual image visually makes you assert it is BAPS-specific, and cannot be branch agnostic?

• The image of Ahmedabad mandir is a photograph by Colonel Biggs from 1866, it is not a sketch [1]. I think we should keep it as it is an authentic image of the temple, not too long after it was constructed.

• The Akshar Purushottam murti should be replaced with the image of Harikrishna Maharaj from the Vadtal temple since Swaminarayan installed that idol as a depiction of himself https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HariKrishna_(cropped).jpg Also, this murti is installed in the Vadtal diocese, and it would be good to have a representative image from that major branch as well.

• I remember in our previous discussion there was some confusion about who is the current acharya of the Vadtal diocese. As per Melton (2020) pg.97 and Williams (2018) pg. 51 Rakeshprasad Pande is the current acharya. The current article text erroneously cites this news article to claim Ajendraprasad as acharya. However, the article explicitly states that “A bench of Justice Mohinder Pal and Justice A C Rao criticized the petitioner for taking up "proxy war" on behalf of Ajendraprasad Pande and rejected to grant any permission to him to perform duties of an acharya. The HC said that the trustees were aware of the trial and proceedings against Ajendraprasad and his son and how they have been restrained by courts, including the Supreme Court, from acting as acharya. But the trust approached the HC.” Therefore, the article text should be edited to reflect the cited sources, and we should add this image of Rakeshprasad Pande next to the Laxminarayan Gadi: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Acharya_Maharajshree_Rakeshprasadji_Vadtal.jpg;

• For the Narnarayan Gadi section this image of Koshalendraprasad Pande can be added: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HH_Acharya_Maharaj_Shri.jpg

• I was unable to find copyright free images for the leaders of Maninagar Gadi and Gunatit Samaj, but I have reached out to both institutions to get such images, and am awaiting replies.

• Finally, for the influence on society sections I think we should include a representative image like a blood drive from ISSO seva or SVG charity to highlight the community service of the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. I will contact the representative organizations for an appropriate image if that sounds good to everyone

With the above edits, the images would be balanced in a more representative way across the various branches as follows:

• NarNarayan Dev Gadi

• 1. Picture of Nar-Narayan Mandir Ahmedabad
• 2. Picture of Koshalendraprasad Pande
• 3. Image of ISSO Seva blood drive

• Laxminarayan Dev Gadi

• 1. Picture of Harikrishna Maharaj in Vadtal Mandir
• 2. Picture of Rakeshprasad Pande
• 3. Image of ISSO Seva blood drive

• BAPS

• 1. Picture of Swaminarayan Akshardham Mandir (Delhi)
• 2. Picture of Mahant Swami Maharaj
• 3. Picture of Swaminarayan bhashyam

• Maninagar

• 1. Picture of Jitendrapriyadas Swami

• Gunatit Samaj

• 1. Picture of Dadubhai

• Branch-Agnostic Images

• 1. Boy doing Swaminarayan daily puja
• 2. Illustration of Swaminarayan preaching to his sadhu disciples
• 3. Illustration of Swaminarayan sitting as the main image of the page
• 4. Picture of the Vachanamrut

Everyone please take a look at my Sandbox and let me know what you think. Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Harshmellow717 for breaking this down. I think the proposed changes are good. Should we outline some of the details of the vadtal acharya dispute. From my understanding the case is still pending. So their isn't an active order that removes him but restrains him from performing as such. I am reading page 51 in Williams book which says that followers in some regions view Ajendra prasad and some view rakeshprasad. What if we updated the text for that to say something to the effect of - "The vadtal acharya position is currently in legal dispute with some viewing Ajendraprasad as Acharya and some viewing Rakeshprasad as Acharya." This would embody an ongoing dispute. Kbhatt22 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree with Harshmellow717 and Kbhatt22. These images provide a nice overview of different organizations within the Swaminarayan Sampraday and diversify the article. The images for which there is permission can be added now. For the rest, Harshmellow717, you will need to secure permission before they can be added in. Best, Skubydoo (talk) 04:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Harshmellow717 and Kbhatt22, for working on this. I think Harshmellow717’s proposal provides a good balance in representing the various branches of the sampradaya. I think the image formatting needs work so that they are properly inline with their relevant sections. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), Skubydoo (talk · contribs), and Apollo1203 (talk · contribs) for your input. Regarding the acharyaship, Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) both state that Rakeshprasadji is the acharya legally as per the courts, they also acknowledge that Ajendraprasad does not accept the courts’ rulings.

• Melton (2020) further states that “With the minority that continued to support him, he [Ajendraprasadji] organized the Shree Swaminarayan Agyna—Upasana Satsang Mandal, and continued to claim his office as the Vadtal acharya and the rights and authority that comes with that office” (97-98).

• Williams (2018) says ”Rakeshprasad Pande occupies the Vadtal gadi and officiates as acharya... Some followers in Junagadh and Gadhada and some other temples outside of Gujarat remain loyal to Ajendraprasad Pande and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.” (51).

• Melton (2020) notes “Shree Swaminarayan Agyna-Upasana Satsang Mandal, which continues the leadership of the deposed Southern division (Vadtal) acharya, Maharajshree Ajendraprasadji. As the Indian court ruling has no effect outside of the country, Ajendraprasadji was able to establish an American headquarters temple in New Jersey to serve those members who remained loyal to him, and he had success in wooing members to his cause, especially in New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. His strongest single American center is the former Vadtal temple in the Chicago suburb of Wheeling, Illinois, that switched its affiliation to the Mandal.” (102)

Based on these sources, I have edited the current version for concision and clarity and introduced the point you suggested with greater accuracy--proposing the below text:

The first acharyas of the two dioceses were Swaminarayan’s two nephews, Ayodhyaprasadji, son of his elder brother Rampratap, who became acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi (Ahmedabad), and Raghuvirji, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, who became acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi (Vadtal). In the twentieth century, litigation involving the acharyas resulted in restrictions on the acharyas’ authority along with the formation of new subgroups. The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. The current acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi is Rakeshprasad Pande, although his deposed predecessor, Ajendraprasad Pande, rejects Indian Supreme Court rulings regarding Rakeshprasad’s appointment and continues to seek allegiances of Laxminarayan Dev Gadi devotees, amongst whom he has the support of a small minority (TOI news article; Melton 2020:97-98, 102; Williams 2018:51).

Apollo1203 (talk · contribs), you mentioned about improving the image formatting. To be honest I was having a difficult time placing the images in my sandbox using the source editor. Can you add the images that already have wikipedia permissions to the article with proper formatting? I don’t want to mess up the formatting on the main article. Harshmellow717 (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 (talk · contribs) I think that proposal is more accurate. I did find this article regarding the pending case that the order to remove the predecessor was stayed so maybe I am reading it all wrong but it looks like a final verdict in the case is still pending with each side believing their own until the final verdict is provided. It appears the case is still pending on who actually is the right one. https://www.dnaindia.com/ahmedabad/report-gujarat-high-court-provides-relief-to-acharya-ajendraprasad-pande-2670933 Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717, Kbhatt22 - I've updated the article based on our discussion. Apollo1203 (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Apollo1203 Thank you for doing this. I just saw you updated formatting so removing my last comment. Looks good Kbhatt22 (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), hope you are well. I read the DNA INDIA article you mentioned. The TOI and DNA articles are discussing how the Gujarat Supreme court partially stayed the judgment passed by the Nadiad court. The Nadiad court ruled in July 2018 that Ajendraprasadji cannot act as acharya or enjoy any of the privileges that come with the office and that he and his followers may not enter any temples of the Vadtal diocese. This ruling was challenged by the Shree Radharaman Dev Mandir Trust on behalf of Ajendraprasadji. The Gujarat High Court who adjudicated the appeal then ruled in September 2018 that while Ajendraprasadji is still not entitled to the acharyaship and its privileges he may still visit temples of the Vadtal diocese as an “ordinary devotee”. So, it seems to me that Rakeshprasadji is legally the acharya of the Vadtal diocese. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey. Hope you are doing well and in good health. So the way I read this is that that the lower court ruled against Ajendraprasad which that order was stayed by the higher court. That is what I get out of the DNA article. He cannot "enjoy the rights of the acharya" but the lower court order of removal is stayed. I think there is a difference between removal and restrained. The lower court removed the then high court stayed the removal and issued a restraint until the higher court hears the case. The Radharaman dev was dubbed a "proxy war". I see that the TOI article states that the restrain order was an "interim order" and the trust couldn't make a claim until that interim order ruling is finalized. The latest article I could find is the one from DNA that says the removal order is stayed and he is restrained till further proceedings. Regardless, its all a mess and I think instead of us saying one over the other, it might make sense to represent neither fully and simply state in that branch specific section that this is a pending case in court. factions of followers regard each as their acharya and the court case is pending to decide the rightful one. It would be simple and easy to maintain until a final conclusive verdict is provided by a court. It is a messy factional dispute it seems where until court provides a final ruling.....I don't think it is fair to say either are the one. Thats all I was trying to say. I also found this searching just now: http://cpersiantimes.ir/number-of-sisters-of-the-acharya-swaminarayan-temple-in-gadda-brutally-beaten-and-kicked-out/ which furthers that its a messy factional dispute that would be best represented at a high level as a pending case. The above shows that Rakeshprasad faction hired bouncers to beat up nuns. Like its that level of messed up. Simply stating their is a factional dispute that is pending in court with factions regarding rakeshprasad and ajendraprasad as acharya might be a simple sum up until a conclusive court order is made. Thoughts? Thanks Harshmellow717 Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), I read the Cpersiantimes article you linked. Though I think it would be odd if we did not explicitly identify the leader of the Vadtal diocese, of course we should also make it clear that the acharyaship is under dispute. Since the news articles are convoluted let’s stick to the scholarly sources published after this court ruling:

1. Williams, R. (2018). An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (3rd ed., Introduction to Religion). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108332989 [Published October 2018]
2. Melton, J. G. (2020). “New New Religions” in North America: The Swaminarayan Family of Religions.The journal of CESNUR, 4(4), 89-109. [Published July-August 2020]

Melton (2020) states, “Accepting the ruling, the main body of the organization moved ahead and selected a new acharya, Rakeshprasadji...Ajendraprasadji did not accept the jurisdiction of the court in the case, nor its action.” (97).

Williams (2018) states, “Rakeshprasad Pande occupies the Vadtal gadi and officiates as acharya... Some followers in Junagadh and Gadhada and some other temples outside of Gujarat remain loyal to Ajendraprasad Pande and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.” (51).

Therefore we should make it clear that Rakeshprasad is the acharya at present while noting that the deposed Ajendraprasad, supported by a small minority of members of the Vadtal diocese, continues to reject court orders and make claims to the post. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I found one more good article that is old but explains it a little more clearly: https://www.deshgujarat.com/2015/07/12/minister-mediates-between-fighting-factions-of-vadtal-swaminarayan-sect/. This was my proposal.

"There is currently an active case regarding the Vadtal Gadi centered around a factional dispute between Dev paksh and Siddhant paksh. Gujarat high court has stayed the order removing Ajendraprsadji Maharaj until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings. Dev paksh, governing the Vadtal temple trust, has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya. Siddhant paksh believes Ajendraprasad is the current acharya and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence."

This points out the legal dispute, factional dispute, identifies who the temple trust has appointed and who each respective faction believes. It is also relatively short so it doesn't bloat that section either. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

:::I think this is good to go and should be added in the article.Kevpopz (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. I added in some clarification to one of the edits you did yesterday as this was being discussed for a while here. I figure I would let you know here and hope it is not a contentious point as it is sourced and relatively basic. I didn't want to add this as a footnote on your new section at the bottom of the talk page as I didn't want to add more talking points there. There are a lot of points you brought up and there are already enough users talking in that section so felt it won't benefit from me being another user in the conversation so I'll drop this note here. Thanks! Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

page

Hi Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs), both Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) make it clear that Rakeshparasad is acharya and that Ajendraprasad refutes the courts judgement, they also make no mention of the Dev paksh and Siddhant paksh groups and their respective affiliations. The current edit seems to be mainly based off of an outdated news article published in 2015. (see WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:NOTNEWS).

The current article states:

The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. There is currently an active case regarding the Vadtal Gadi centered around a factional dispute between Dev paksh, the faction led by Rakeshprasad Pande, and Siddhant paksh, which is led by Ajendraprasad Pande.[88] Gujarat high court has stayed the Nadiad court order removing Ajendraprasad until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings.[89] Dev paksh, governing the Vadtal temple trust, has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya..[90][1]:51 Siddhant paksh believes Ajendraprasad is the current acharya and welcome his son, Nrigendraprasad, to officiate at functions in Swaminarayan temples in his absence.[12]

Instead, a better formulation based on the academic sources is:

The current acharya of the Nar Narayan Dev Gadi is Koshalendraprasad Pande. The current acharya of the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi is Rakeshprasad Pande, who replaced Ajendraprasad Pande based on rulings of the Indian Supreme Court. Ajendraprasad and his son, Nrigendraprasad, continue to challenge the judgment of the courts with the support of a small minority of the Laxminarayan Dev Gadi (TOI news article); (Melton 2020, pg. 97-98, 102); (Williams 2018, pg. 51).

As per WP:RS, “When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” We should give preference to Williams (2018) and Melton (2020) over the outdated Times of India, DNA India, and Deshgujarat news articles. Harshmellow717 (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey Harshmellow717. The case is currently pending in Supreme Court per the news articles, not sure where it says the supreme court issued a replacement order. The local court passed that ruling which was stayed/halted by the higher court which is what the current version outlines. Melton and Williams point to a 2001 and 2006 court ruling which is fine but they don't update anything in regards to the case beyond 2006. Williams also does not list a retired date for Ajendraprasad and continues both Ajendraprasad and Rakesprasad on page 47. Unless I missed anything in those sources that is newer, we have news articles that outline more clarity on current standing by providing more recent updates. The 2015 article was used to simply cite the two factions and the newer court ruling updates the latest stay order. I cannot find anything that gives a more recent update past 2018. The news articles and Melton and Williams are not clashing where we have to pick between the two. Melton and Williams provide no update beyond 2006 in their writings while the news articles add clarity and context from 2018 as a continuation. Thanks. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

page

Kevpopz (talk · contribs) I appreciate your proactive spirit in editing the article images, however, as you can see a few users discussed edits to images in detail prior to making edits. In the spirit of collaborative editing, I have removed the images you added. Please feel free to suggest image updates in your sandbox. Below are my comments on the images you had added:

• The stamp image of Dadubhai Patel does not have permissions for use and it should be removed. As noted previously I have reached out to the organization to obtain permission and high quality images

• Nice lets wait then. I will follow up on this is as well. Why doesn't does the image still appear on Wiki for us to link it in articles?

• The image of Swaminarayan writing the Shikshapatri isn’t high-quality, however, we could use an image of the Shikshapatri manuscript found on Wikimedia.

• Let's do this! How should we go about it?

• The image of Ramanand Swami is low-resolution, I can look for a better image of Swaminarayan and Ramanand Swami together.

• How are you seeing a low-resolution pic? And what determines a low res pic. I used multiple devices to validate my photo edits and it looked fine. I will undo this until you find a better picture.

• The image of Swaminarayan, Gopalanad Swami and acharyas, is not a neutral image in comparison to the image of Swaminarayan and his paramhansa.

• How is this not neutral? This picture shows paramhansas, the acharayas and swaminarayan himself all founded in the Sampraday. In the picture you have put now, it shows gunatitanand sitting the closest and completely leaves out the acharayas of the time. Please do not push a BAPS agenda in the the early section as it did not exist until 1906. I will also undo this edit.

Thanks Harshmellow717 (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you spend time reading through the basic Wikipedia editing policies. I agree with Harshmellow717’s edits and comments. Kbhatt22, Harshmellow717, Skubydoo, Moksha88 and myself have had image discussions dating back to July 18. As a group we were able to agree on image updates which would ensure the article is neutral. Apollo1203 (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I looked at and it I didn't make any picture count changes to the Original Sampraday vs the others so I don't think it needs to be discussed further. I made comments above. Kevpopz (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The last thing ANYBODY wants is for me to talk more about images haha. As previously mentioned, we have discussed images over the last few months now and worked to get things much more balanced. The only outstanding items were Harshmellow and I were having a respectful conversation about the vadtal situation. We agreed with each other and were working out wording. The only other outstanding item was the other users volunteered to reach out to gather images for Maninagar and Gunatit samaj. Sometimes the places with the images never respond or take weeks or months and there is nothing we can do about it and just have to wait. The rest of the images have been discussed through. The only additional observation I want to put out there about the images in the last few edits is the stamp image was removed because of copyright but also because Dadubhai isn't the current leader of that branch(which is the trend we were going for) and we were trying to find an image of Hariprasad to use but one with permission wasn't available. So a couple reasons why that stamp image had to be removed. Kbhatt22 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22, so the Ramananand Swami photo is fine under a better pic that can be found. I replaced the Shikshapatri with a cleaner pic and chose a clearer picture for the Ahmedbad temple. The picture remaining in question is the paramhansas, the acharayas and and swaminarayam. It shows each form of authority partipant. I can't even imagine how that is considered non neutral when the other photo completely leaves out the acharayas. Kevpopz (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kevpopz Or we could wait to add the Ramanand Swami pic until another one is found. Either way is fine. The Ahmedabad temple image had been discussed and supposedly that picture wasn't a sketch but an actual picture from a camera during construction time which is why it stayed. In all fairness, there will never be a picture of sadhus that will be neutral since each branch has different beliefs. We want to be branch agnostic where we can. All in all, the only pictures that were outstanding was the leader images for Maninagar and Gunatit samaj and that effort has been already made by the other editors who took the time to try and acquire permission. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I updated the acharya images to be side by side again. It just maintains the rest of the section in terms of spacing. Kbhatt22 (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@talk Thanks for the updates. Regardless of each branch having different beliefs, we can't have one side push the narrative. When Swaminarayan was alive, he was the leader and he had the paramhansas (Senior Disciples) and the acharayas. A picture that only shows the leader and the paramhansas is clearly one sides. I just checked and this is a BAPS owned photo which is obviously going to leave out the acharayas. The photo currently has all three represented so there is no reason for people to get upset unless they unaware of the blatant violation of neutrality.Kevpopz (talk) 01:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kevpopz: Welcome to Wikipedia. I understand Wikipedia encourages to be bold and to make edits, and Apollo1203 clearly mentioned that there were a handful of editors involved in discussions about the images in the article. These discussions started 3 months ago with a goal of ensuring NPOV. Very recently, consensus was reached for the images that were on the article prior to your additions, so I have reverted them back. Don’t worry, that doesn’t mean that the images you feel would make the article better cannot be added to the article. It just means that respecting the recently reached consensus on the issue, you should post your suggestions on the talk page, see if we can get the consensus from editors on your points, and move forward from there. Moksha88 (talk) 03:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::Okay but why revert something that isn't currently being disputed. After the edit has been made, it can be discussed or am I wrong? It's not a controversial edit. So what is the issue with the picture of Swaminarayan, Senior Paramhansas, & Acharayas together vs the BAPS image of just Swaminarayan and Senior Paramhansas?Kevpopz (talk) 03:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) :::::: I just realized that the picture that is being currently used and disputed is already used in the Vachnamrut cover. The sect pushing agenda on here is insane. Why would we have the same picture twice? No one has addressed this in a few days so if there is a problem, then discuss the new edit here with out reverting. Kevpopz (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz (talk · contribs) I have been following the image discussions since July and I don’t quite understand what POV is pushed in the image of Swaminarayan (founder of the sampradaya) and his senior disciples / swamis sitting with him. Also, the image was placed in the Early monasticism section which fits perfectly with the content discussed in the section. The image is taken from the Vachanamrut published by Aksharpith but that does not indicate a POV push. The image description is also ‘Swaminarayan and paramhanso’, again, nothing about that is POV pushing. This image was discussed and consensus was reached to use it, it was not currently being debated. However, the image you have selected does indicate a POV push. The description of the image reads, ‘In this manner, the Lord himself entrusted the sovereignty of the entire Satsang to Shree Gopalanand Swami’ indicating the Swaminarayan Gadi doctrine. Therefore, I have removed this image and kept the previously used neutral image WP:NPOV. As mentioned before in this thread, other editors have been discussing the images for quite some time and reached consensus, feel free to discuss on the talk page and create mock-ups in your sandbox if you feel otherwise. As a new editor it is clear you have a strong passion to edit Wikipedia articles, however, I would avoid persistently accusing others of POV pushing or affiliation bias WP:UNCIVIL. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::::::::User:Actionjackson09 Two points and I think you missed both of them. First, the picture is already used in the article. It is repetitive and doesn't need to be used twice. It is on the cover of the BAPS vachnamrut and is very visible. Next the picture itself is a BAPS photo that shows Gunatitanad Swami sitting the closest to Swaminarayan when in face Guntatitanad is not mentioned in the vachnamrut nor an author and BAPS entire interpretation is based on Akshar being him so there is POVPUSHING. Per the scriptures during Swaminarayan's time, the acharyas were made the successors and Gopalanand Swami was charged with looking after the temples of of Vadtal and Ahmedabad and all of the ascetics in the sampradaya. Please do not leave messages on my talk page without merit and do not only selectively make points and ignore the straightforward points that this picture is used twice so you are getting your way regardless and the image is placed in an area that completely ignores the context of text that he explicitly designated leadership. There is sect pushing going on. Should we get an administrator to resolve this because it is becoming apparent which users will side where? Why don't you finding shocking that 3 of the authors I uncovered on here are BAPS members and push a BAPS POV in their publishing's? You are very contradictory and selective what you are outraged at...Kevpopz (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

So to throw in my 2 cents. Its a valid point that the current image was on the page twice. I uploaded the image into google and the closest thing I could find for a source (the original upload doesn't say where it came from) was this: https://www.swaminarayangadi.com/publications/video.php?pid=68. High res versions are on other sites as well but this seems to be the origin. So to put it in simple terms, both images in question originate from a book cover from a specific branch. The one used was from a Baps book cover, which is already on the page. The one proposed appears to come from a Maninagar Gadi book cover. Maninagar Gadi currently doesn't have a single image on the page or any image representation. Baps has 3 branch specific images and all 4 branch agnostic images originate from Baps as well. I think this is a good opportunity for us to give Maninagar gadi some image representation on the page. Now we could resolve this and the ramanand swami image concerns with something like this: https://www.swaminarayan.faith/media/2164/ramanand-swami-meets-shri-hari.jpg because it seems more neutral then both the current images being discussed....but I have reached out to that site before for a separate image months ago and never got a response. All in all, it is a valid point that the image is on the page twice and the proposed change gives a branch with 0 image representation at least 1 image. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22, I concur. Not only is the image used twice, out of context, that is an overrepresentation of BAPS and ZERO of Maninagar. Based on this information, I am reverting the edit. Kevpopz (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz.. I can understand your frustration but wait for a response. I think you have raised a valid concern and I brought up some points that merit discussion, namely inclusion of the other branches since we have an opportunity to include Maninagar Gadi imagery here. I can't see anyone having an objection to this after the newly raised points but its best to wait for a response. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

== Membership ==

How can we incorporate how to join the Swaminarayan Sampraday into this article?

A member of the Swaminarayan Sampraday is known as a "Satsangi." Male satsangis are initiated by the acharya of the gadi or diocese he comes under. Female satsangis are initiated by the wife of the acharya, who is the leader of women in the Swaminarayan Sampraday.

We can quote from the Shikshapatri

Verse

Verse 128: I have enthroned the two Acharyas as spiritual leaders of my disciples, with a view to protect dharma. They shall initiate those male aspirants who are desirous of salvation.

Verse 133: The wives of these Acharyas, with the permission of their husbands, shall initiate, preach, and give the Mantra Diksha of Lord Shree Krishna to females only.

Source

https://wayback.archive-it.org/org-467/20191016104949/http://www.shikshapatri.org.uk/~imagedb/hms/mss_browse.php?reset=1&expand=638,639

Kevpopz (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. My initial thoughts are a section under Beliefs. Right after Background maybe have a new section for Initiation or Membership. I would assume the initiation practices vary by branch so would be open to other opinions on how to manage that but I think initiation is simple concept and an easy intro for readers. It should be early to show more about day to day life about the faiths followers. I would change your proposed edit slightly to read "Swaminarayan states in the shikshapatri that Male satsangis are....".

That probably wouldn't be enough to be its own section but I did find this earlier and proposed it above and I think this new section would be great to include this about day to day practices / initiation.

Here is something that used to be on this page from Willaim Brodeys book on page 162:

Upon initiation, Satsangi make 11 vows, called Niyams (Rules):

• Be non-violent
• Do not have any kind of relationship with a woman other than your wife
• Do not eat meat, including seafood, poultry products or eggs
• Do not drink products that contain alcohol, including medicines
• Never touch a widow woman whom you do not know
• Never commit suicide in any circumstances
• Do not steal
• Never blame others for something that you may not know about
• Never disparage God, Goddesses, or any religion
• Never eat someone's food who does not follow these eleven rules
• Never listen to holy stories from an atheist.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

:::Sounds like a great addition. Let's go ahead and add it. Kevpopz (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz I would move that section under Beliefs, right after the background sub section instead of history since its applicable to modern times and more about the faiths beliefs. History doesn't feel like the right place for it. Also I noticed, you updated some of the image formatting, could you scale down the acharya images so everything fits adjacent to their section. I am not good with image formatting. Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::Would you move the text? I will adjust the images. Kevpopz (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz I moved the text. I see you are new to Wiki. Welcome. If you have a message directed at someone, be sure to tag them so they get pinged and the message doesn't get missed. Happy editing Kbhatt22 (talk) 12:48, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @ Kbhatt22. If you have time would you help me at my sandbox. I am looking for fresh citation and organization. I noticed this article is completely devoid of any information on the acharayas and sadhus during the sampradays foundation. I went back and found that a lot of stuff has been removed and now most of the article is slanted towards convincing readers of a darshan made up from a splinter group. I see another user said there is devotee ownership here and based on how the article reads, it feels so true. Kevpopz (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevpopz. I can help with smaller edits and such. I am not a pro wiki editor. I think the goal of this page is to provide an overview of the faith in terms of origin and evolution. Guide readers to the specific branches for branch specific ideology where appropriate. Feel free to ping me on your sandbox for any specific areas I can help with. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I have found a few issues with the sub-section ‘Membership’ that has been added. First, the content would make more logical sense in ‘Practices’ vs. ‘Beliefs’ section. In fact, many of the points added here are redundant with the Practices section. Second, the text that was added appears to only speak to the Narnarayan Dev and Lakshminarayan Dev Gadis which is not neutral point of view WP:NPOV, as the article is on the Swaminarayan Sampradaya, not just two branches of it. Third, the Shikshapatri source is a primary source and the citation after Gadiwala in Williams 2018 is to the glossary and not the actual claim that is written. Additionally, Williams (2018) page 162 does not list the 11 vows that are listed. For these reasons I have removed it and added a paragraph in the ‘Practices’ section which is neutral and summarizes the characteristics of followers. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

:::Doesn't the Shikshapatri apply to all sects?Kevpopz (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Which source says that those rules "only speak to the Narnarayan Dev and Lakshminarayan Dev Gadis"? Williams and Shah (2010), Swaminarayan Hinduism in Europe, in Handbook of Hinduism in Europe, BRILL, p.394, lists "The eleven basic rules for householders [which] are found in the Siksapatri and other Swaminarayan texts." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I find it rather unfair to remove a discussed change and ask for more discussion...when the removal was never discussed and just done. I think the membership section gave a better glimpse of the day to day beliefs of followers and that section was sourced with primary and secondary sources. I did get the page number wrong in Brodys reading as I went with what was sourced on the older version of the page but JJ has provided a newer source that can be used. After what was the membership section, initiation for membership for the other branches can be added with proper citations as well. But removing source material is unfair.

I also feel that section was a great place early to mention Gadiwala. I am fascinated by that concept. It is 2020 and it is unjust to remove what was the one mention in the faiths texts and one existence of women leadership in this religion. Swaminarayan also established successorship for women in this case and that should be represented. That is not a branch specific understanding as it is primary sourced in swaminarayans writings and secondarily sourced in the sources outlined above. Here is another really good article we can use as a source: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/yw3xgm/when-one-million-people-believe-your-husband-is-a-god . It is also a really good read. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan to your question: I was not referring to the eleven basic rules you mentioned, but that some of the other text in the way the “Membership” section was worded was skewed towards the beliefs of only two of the branches. For example, the first sentence stated ‘Swaminarayan states in the Shikshapatri that male satsangis are initiated by the acharya he comes under.’ This is only applicable to Vadtal and Ahmedabad Diocese and could be seen as a WP:POVPUSH. The term ‘Gadiwala’ is specific to Ahmedabad and Vadtal as well. To alleviate the POV and incorrect sourcing, the new sentence in the 'Practices' section summarizes the code of conduct for devotees suggested by Kbhatt22 using NPOV. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

:I am just adding to Apollo that the Shikshapatri applies to all members of the faith and it is stated in there that's how you become a member of the Sampraday not the sects. We can use Acharayas wives if that helps you sleep better at night and you are welcome to add other deviations of other sects if you feel the need too. What do you suggest we put as there needs to be information on how to join and the BAPS god has stated how to do so by saying Swaminarayan states in the Shikshapatri that male satsangis are initiated by the acharya he comes under....?

::Out of curiosity, why didn't you have the same energy at this text that I had to change because it was definitely a WP:POVPUSH: "The tilak is a u-shaped saffron-colored symbol made of sandalwood, symbolizing God’s feet, and the chandlo is a red symbol made of kumkum, symbolizing God’s ideal devotee?" It seems there is only selectively picking and choosing...Kevpopz (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. It is not really POV pushing if it is summarizing the direct writing of the faiths founder....unless you believe the founder was POV pushing. The sourcing is also not incorrect as it uses the skishapatri as the primary source and williams is the secondary source and what JJ presented would be the third source on top. The article I posted would also be a 4th source. Gadiwala was a term from williams writings so I used that in my talking above as well as it was the term in that Vice news article above. The reasoning behind calling this POV applies more strongly and directly to the Akshar purshottum section and moksha sections which source material from a chapter that leads with the ideology being how Baps understands it. The concerns you raised are addressed by the new sources presented unless I am missing something. Kbhatt22 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

::::@Kbhatt22 What needs to be done to place this information in the right place of the article? This is endless reasoning and the biases are very clear. Kevpopz (talk) 18:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kevpopz. I don't know what needs to be done to re-add this back in at this point. General consensus seems that is properly sourced with the added sources. I would think it is best to wait for Apollo to respond. He/she would need to come up with a source at this point that states that that verse cited, written by Swaminarayan himself, was intended for the two branches since that is his reasoning for undoing the edit. If it was added back in right now, another user account will simply revert it and it will turn into a merry go round like just about everything else. Joshua Jonathan, what would be the right thing to do here?

:::::I will wait another day. This is getting so drawn out....Kevpopz (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) to your point of being ‘fair’ that the removal was never discussed and just done, on the alternative side only you and a brand new editor decided to add the Membership section without input from other editors, so this seems that doesn’t seem to be fair either?

Also if I may, the readability of the article has significantly suffered since the sporadic edits have begun. The Membership section seemed odd to include here, I feel as if Membership implies that there are certain rules and requirements to be eligible. From what I have read, this is not the case in the Swaminarayan Sampradaya. The way it has been outlined in ‘Practices’ makes more sense to me. Please let me know if you disagree!ThaNDNman224 (talk) 02:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(sorry I added this under new religious movement erroneously, clearly I need to get some sleep!)

ThaNDNman224 sorry I respectfully disagree with you on your reasoning about fairness because the discussion was here for others to respond for a few days. I agree it could have waited a little more (I moved the placement once it had already been added) but conversely, given your reasoning above I am sure you agree, it is unfair to say something that was discussed between 2 users should be reverted but Apollo added his version to practices without discussing with anyone after the revert.

In terms of the section, the sources and reasoning was presented in clarity with a primary and secondary According to the text written by the founder, there are rules of membership/initiation so that was what was there. Can you present the sources that contradicts the primary and secondary source presented that you have read? It would help better guide this discussion. Kbhatt22 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (I also added to new religious section accidently. My bad)

The article now says

According to Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi (Vadtal Gadi) and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi (Ahmedabad Gadi), Swaminarayan stated in the Shikshaprati, "The Acharyas are the religious heads and they shall initiate male disciples according to Vedic rituals” and "Our followers who act according to these directions, shall certainly obtain the four great objects of human desire the disciplined life (dharma), material gain (artha), pleasure (kama) and salvation (moksha)."[note 10][67][68]

Does the BAPS have another reading or interpretation of the Siksapatri? If it's not applicable to the BAPS, why not? It would be interesting to know why not. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) I agree removing sourced material is not fair, but it seems Apollo1203 (talk · contribs)’s reason for removing it was clear, the sourcing was incorrect, as you admitted to Kbhatt22 (talk · contribs) [1]. I don't think it is unfair for material to be removed when there is an error in the citation. Though, moving forward, I suggest posting proposals in the talkpage so we can all verify sources and avoid errors. Perhaps editors should also consider putting up “Failed verification” or other relevant tags rather than outright deleting the edit.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Info on the initiation into membership clearly belongs at the Practices-section, while info on moksha belongs to the Beliefs-section. The info on the Dharmakul is repetitious, and distracts from the main point, namely the importance of moksha. It could be moved from the beliefs-section. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey Harshmellow717. Hope all is well. I agree with what you suggested and I think failed verification tag would be a good approach. Its a request to fix rather then a revert that makes it easier to resolve and move on. For what its worth, I try not to make any edits to the main page unless its a simple fix or I am asked to. But in terms of this edit, the source issue has been corrected and there has been no follow-up to mine or JJ's request for sources to the counter argument so we will wait for that to come in should it exist. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hold on, I just read the second paragraph. The third paragraphs details the BAPS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi all,

This article has started to gain a lot of attention over the last couple months! It is a good sign to see how cluttered the talk page has become, it shows that users are discussing and engaging with one another avoiding sporadic and subpar edits on the article. I think Kevpopz (talk · contribs) needs to understand that all editors are trying to maintain NPOV. Avoiding conflict and discussing to reach consensus is the best way to go.

With that being said, I don’t see the merit of adding a ‘membership’ section on the article. I am not aware of Wikipedia pages for any religious movements that have a section like that. See: ISKON, Swadhyaya Movement, Islam, and Mormonism.

Best wishes,

Skubydoo (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

:::::::@Skubydoo That's interesting that you perceive editors are trying to maintain NPOV though that isn't the case. In Islam it does say for muslims what the process is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims#Qualifier. And in ISKON, Swadhyaya Movement and Mormonism founders have not stated an explicit formal process to become a member in their doctrine like how Swaminarayan commands that only,

::::::: :*the Acharayas and their wife's can initiate. Shikshapatri 128,133 :::::::This is significant to include as in the same book it stated that the ultimate purpose of life can be earned by following his commands....

::::::: :*My disciples who live in accordance of the precepts of this Shikshapatri shall attain the four Purusharthas: Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Shikshapatri 206

:::::::And then the next verse Swaminarayn himself literally states the consequence of not following his command for membership: ::::::: :*Those of my male and female disciples, who do not follow the precepts of this Shikshapatri, shall be considered as excommunicated from our Sampradaya. Shikshapatri 207

::::::: I can see how groups that broke away from this requirement would not want this to be in the article. It does merit being included in the article since the doctrine, the Swaminarayans own writings, requires a formal process which is the only way of joining.

::::::: Kevpopz (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have had a hard time keeping up with everything these last few days, but I believe what @Joshua Jonathan: is stating above is that the introduction to the ‘Practices’ section succinctly outlines the codes of conduct practiced by followers, so it's redundant to include them again under 'Beliefs.' If so, I agree with that point. To your point @Kbhatt22: “I respectfully disagree with you on your reasoning about fairness because the discussion was here for others to respond for a few days” just keep in mind that consensus is not assumed just because nobody responds to a post that they previously participated in, particularly when everyone here has been active on this page for the last several weeks (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). I would just encourage you and everyone else to really understand what others are saying before jumping into rash edits and reverts on the article. Moksha88 (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Moksha88 I didn't make any rash edits and haven't reverted anything. I would encourage you to review the edit history. I have refrained from making edits to the actual page unless it was a typo or I was specifically asked too. Please try to keep this about the content. In terms of this edit, I agree with the current version after Joshua Jonathan made the recent corrections/adjustments. Instead of the Moksha section being one sided, it nicely explains the concept of moksha neutrally and then each branches sourced understanding. Well done! Kbhatt22 (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

New Religious Movement

Resolved

I noticed that the “New religious movement” category was associated with the Swaminarayan Sampradaya and out of curiosity I began reading about what ‘New religious movements’ entailed. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya was founded in the early 1800s, has millions of followers worldwide, and has traditions rooted in Vedanta philosophies. Therefore, I don’t think it meets the definition of a new religious movement and I have removed it from the article and talk page. Actionjackson09 (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

:: It says right on the New religious movement page that "Some scholars view the 1950s or the end of the Second World War in 1945 as the defining time, while others look as far back as the founding of the Latter Day Saint movement in 1830.". BAPS and Swaminarayan Gadi were found 1907 and 1940. They should be added to that list and I went ahead and did so. Thanks for the catch Kevpopz (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Kevpopz The NRM seems vague with its origin criterion but if you read through the article in detail, the beliefs, membership, reception don’t align with what the Swaminarayan Gadi and BAPS believe and follow. The Swaminarayan Sampradaya as a whole has its roots in Vedanta traditions which extend to all major branches. That is, it seems that NRM designation doesn’t apply to sub-denominations arising within larger denominations. For example, the Episcopal church has numerous sub-denominations within the last 200 years, but they are not considered NRM, but sub-denominations within a larger denomination. So, I do not think it needs to be part of the template and I have removed it. If you disagree and feel it would be better to discuss it further we can discuss and reach a consensus on it. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Melton uses the term "New New Religious Movement." I'll look-up exactly why he does so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

::::: I see where you are coming from. Episcopal church is a good example and I want to know why. Let's discuss this topic on that page. Maybe we can have some more diverse thoughts.Kevpopz (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Melton (2020), "New New Religions in North America: The Swaminarayan Family of religions, The Journal of CESNUR, treats the Swaminarayan "family of religions" as a NRM, but proposes to tweak the definition of NRM (p.106):

...we should see NRMs as those groups constantly being formed on the fringe of the older, more stable parts of the religious community, and those older fringe groups that are able to maintain a high tension with the religious establishment.

New religious tendencies are all around us. They appear as dissenting and innovative movements in established churches that at any time can separate from the parent body, such as the New Apostolic Reformation movement on the edge of Pentecostalism; sectarian movements that in a different context become new religions, like the Swaminarayan groups; and new innovative religious impulses that synthesize a new religious gestalt.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I found a couple sources as well labeling the entire branch and particularly BAPS and by proxy Swaminarayan Gadi. Seems pretty apparent but waiting to see how Melton is refuted. Kevpopz (talk) 07:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC) this editor is a banned sock puppet Harshmellow717 (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverting Edits Made by Banned Sockpuppet

Hello everyone, 2 months ago Applebutter221 (talk · contribs) and numerous unregistered users edited this article and other Swaminarayan related articles disruptively. Applebutter221 (talk · contribs) and the unregistered users were confirmed to be sockpuppets of Swamiblue (talk · contribs) [1] and were consequently banned. More recently, editors Kevpopz (talk · contribs) and Portland21 (talk · contribs) were also found to be sockpuppets of Swamiblue (talk · contribs) [2]. As per WP:SOCKSTRIKE talk page posts by sockpuppets should be crossed out or outright deleted if no one has responded to a post by the sockpuppet. WP:SOCKSTRIKE also states that article edits made by a sockpuppet should be reverted, I have confirmed this with the admin involved with the SPI [3]. The idea is to deter sockpuppeting since incorporating the socks’ edits will just encourage this behavior and further their disruptive editing. I have noticed some of the sock’s major edits have been removed, I will go through their edits on this page and start removing any remaining edits. Please feel free to help remove their edits. Harshmellow717 (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 thank you for sharing this update. I see you made a handful of reverts/edits, I will take a pass through the article as well. Apollo1203 (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Early History - Sahajanand Swami

Resolved

I’ve reviewed the Sahajanand Swami section and made edits accordingly. Below is a summary of my edits and rationale:

1. I fixed the sourcing throughout this section to accurately reflect correct page numbers and most recent versions of sources as per WP:AGEMATTERS. Specifically, older versions of Williams' work were being used.
2. After looking at previous versions of the article, I have incorporated back language that clearly explains the chronology of Ramanand Swami’s death, Sahajanand Swami’s succession, and the origin of the mantra. The previous version had blurred the connection between these events, and this writing is more clear.
3. The new version gives a brief history while maintaining WP:NPOV. Specifically, the discussion on modes of succession and the interpretation of the Swaminarayan mantra.

Apollo1203 (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Removing the Vadtal/Ahmedabad understanding of the mantra is not exactly maintaining npov. You're simply restoring your preferred version. Chronologically it makes no sense either: you're implying that already at the time of Ramanand's death Swaminarayan was regarded as the manifestation of Purushottam, and Gunatitanand Swami as his ideal devotee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Please take a look at the updated version. I believe it is more clear now. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I noticed; thanks. Appreciate the swift response. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Lead paragraph edits

Resolved

Thank you Harshmellow717 for reverting the blocked sockpuppet’s (Kevpopz) edits. With the many edits and revisions over time, the lead paragraph became too lengthy and lacked logical flow making it hard to follow. At first glance it may appear that my edit removed a lot of material. However, I believe there was undue weight given to a lot of information and it would not give a reader a brief and clear overview of the article’s content.MOS:LEADREL,MOS:INTRO Apollo1203 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Accord. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!\

This does read a lot cleaner. Good job. There is one error tho. There is a paragraph that reads "After Swaminarayan’s death, different interpretations of successorship have emerged" .....as discussed many times, two branches had successor ship before Swaminarayan's death so it wouldn't be correct to bucket them all as "after the founders" death. The previous version of this was probably more insightful and clear with dates and times. Just my 2 cents Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

Not sure who this goes too. First time editing under this protection sanction. The image under early history appears 3 times on the page now. It is in the Sahajanand Swami section, early monasticism section, and in the scriptures section as the book cover. Can the first two instances be removed? Or at least any 2 of 3. Looks to have been added in the third time in error. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny; must be an error indeed. I'll leave it to others to solve this; I didn't participate in the discussion on the illustrations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yep. All set. Thanks everyone. Kbhatt22 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias under Gunatit Samaj section

There seems to be some form of bias and unverified claims under the Gunatit Samaj section. The sources/references mentioned in the section do not allude to the claims mentioned in that section. The matter(s) asserted there should be looked at & sufficient sources should be provided to prove those assertions to be true, at the moment this simply is not the case and a one-sided argument is portrayed with vindictive connotations. GunatitSamaj1966 (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Swaminarayan Mandir Vasna Sanstha (SMVS) is a Hindu denomination within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which propagates the preaching and teaching of Swaminarayan. Devnandandasji Swami, usually addressed as HDH Bapji his devotees and followers, is the founder and mentor of the organization. Multifaceted activities in areas like social, cultural, educational, religious fields are carried out by SMVS under the directions and guidance of Bapji and his second in-command and current Guru Satyasankalpdasji Swami, who is usually addressed as HDH Swamishri. Sahaj01 (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gangster8192 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Scriptural tradition section

Hi all, I have made a few edits for clarity, please see my reasoning below.

Shikshapatri

The citation to Paramtattvadas 2017 does not mention the Shikshapatri, therefore, I have removed that as a source. Based on Brahmbhatt and Williams 2018, I’ve updated the sentence to match the source.

Sacred biographies

The sentence cited to Peter Schreiner gives undue weight (WP:UNDUE) to his claim that the Satsangi Jivan is the oldest and most authentic source. It doesn’t appear to be a claim with academic consensus (WP:RS/AC). Williams 2018 does not state this either (I am specifically referencing Williams since there is a mutual acceptance of his scholarship). I have removed this one sentence.

Vedanta Commentaries

I re-read through this section and have made a few edits. The sentence added to the last paragraph (Paramtattvadas Swami describes Swaminarayan’s teachings…) was not in the source cited and it did not seem logically placed. I rewrote the sentence and placed it directly after the Swaminarayan Bhashyam is introduced. I have rewritten the Kashi Vidvat Parisad paragraph to improve flow and avoid stringing direct quotes. And finally, I’ve updated the text regarding the World Sanskrit Conference.

Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Beliefs Section - Copy Edit

Within the Beliefs section, I made a few edits aiming for greater concision and clarity (and therefore greater readability) since upon closer examination, some of the text was redundant. First, I removed the 'Background' section and combined it with the introductory section creating two paragraphs. The version that existed in the Background section made valid points; however, I reworded it to remove the string of direct quotes and improve the content's flow. Second, as Note 5 was an exact duplicate of the text within the Metaphysics section, I have removed it. Next, I removed two redundant sentences regarding the human-form manifestation. Overall, the modifications aim to improve readability of a fairly esoteric topic for non-specialist readers, while maintaining accuracy to scholarly sources. Finally, I added a transition statement in the Moksha section leading to the final paragraph. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Practices section

Hi all, I have edited the practices section for improved clarity and readability. Since the spiritual practices are encompassed within Ekantik Dharma I removed the opening paragraph and Ekantik Dharma subheading. The first few paragraphs provide a sufficient overview. Harshmellow717 (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And removed sourced info which provides a background to those practices; I don't see how that improves the clarity. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Major Branches Section - Copy Edit

The previous version of the introductory section emphasized weight on one perspective of successorship vs. the other. The edit I have made to the introductory section puts equal weight on both modes of successorship. I think it would be helpful to the non-specialist reader if the names of the dioceses are kept consistent throughout the article. I have changed all the current names to their official names, according to their website, as the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi and Nar Narayan Dev Gadi. I made a minor edit in the Swaminarayan Gadi section regarding their current leader (all branches listed do not have dates the leaders were appointed). Apollo1203 (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Apollo1203: you changed

In the Lekh, Swaminarayan established two "administrative dioceses,"

into

According to the Laxmi Narayan Dev and Nar Narayan Dev Gadis, Swaminarayan established two "administrative dioceses," [...] via the Lekh

That's not okay. It suggests that this is a subjective interpretation propagated by the Vadtal and Ahmedabad, and not a historical fact.

You also changed

According to a number of traditions, Swaminarayan introduced a spiritual lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus through which he manifests.

into

According to a majority of branches, Swaminarayan also introduced a spiritual lineage of Aksharbrahman Gurus through which he manifests.

That's not okay either. It suggests that their interpretation is 'more correct'. If we start to write like this, we can also do a count of the number of members, and conclude that a majority of Swaminarayan-devotees does not follow this interpretation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Laxminarayan Dev Gadi Acharya

Hi all, I went back and looked at all the sources presented in our previous discussions regarding this matter and have edited the article for conciseness and readability based on them and have removed the information that could not be sourced. I could not find an “active case” regarding the acharyaship issue. The article cited DeshGujarat [1] but I couldn’t find any mention of an active case in it or any other news articles for that matter. The article also cites DNA India [2] and states “Gujarat high court has stayed the Nadiad court order removing Ajendraprasad until a final verdict is reached. He is restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya during the proceedings” According to DNA India, The Nadiad court declared that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya and prohibited him from entering the Vadtal gadi temples. The Gujarat High Court agreed with the Nadiad court that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya but disagreed with the ruling that Ajendraprasad should be banned from entering Vadtal Gadi property. DNA India states, “The bench, however, did not restore his position as former acharya so as to enable him to enjoy the rights associated with the position, but he can visit the religious sites as a commoner.” From my understanding, in order for Ajendraprasad to become acharya, he would need a court ruling to reinstate him to the post, until that time Rakeshprasad is acharya. Harshmellow717 (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Harshmellow717 Unfortunately I am blocked from editing now because of the sock's actions but we did discuss this and I laid out the articles and scholarly sources with the edit I have made and instead of responding to it or engaging in any confusion, it seems you just undid what I had done. The information you removed was sourced. The last article around the whole matter is the one from 2018. It states the "The division bench of justice Harsha Devani and justice AS Supehia provided the relief to Ajendraprasad till his petition against his removal from the office of acharya is decided by the court." Unless you can present something that shows this was resolved, there is no follow up to that stay order. Indian courts apperently take decades to hear cases. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a newer source but feel free to share one. The source also does not claim what you said in "The Gujarat High Court agreed with the Nadiad court that Ajendraprasad is not the acharya" because the high court based on the last available article has not given a verdict but stayed the trial/nadiad/lower court order. What I had was an article(DeshGujarat) that explained the two sides of a factional dispute and the under standings of both sides and the current status of the case(fron 2018). I also laid out the scholarly sources both reference news artciles pre-2005. What you changed too is making a decision on a case that is pending based on the last available article presented. Tagging Joshua Jonathan here as he is good with sources and I had taken the time to answer all your questions and lay it out but it seems what is there now on the page is not consistent with the sources and is making a change as opposed to responding to a discussion. Kbhatt22 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22: diff in question. Reading it now, but I have to dive in it deeper. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Thank you so much for the time. I think my edit gave fair and equal representation to 2 sides of what appears to be a multi-decade conflict. Here [1] is another recent article I found outlining the conflict. The legality of it is tough to discern but Williams and Melton cite articles from 2001 and 2005 and then two 2018 articles outline that the lower court (regional I assume) order was stayed by a higher court but the restraint of "enjoying rights of acharya" during the appeals was upheld. Radha raman trust (which the Indian express article outlines as the governing body of the "temple in junagadh") sought to gain relief in the restraint portion but was denied as it was a proxy attempt "till pendency of the appeal" was being heard. All in all, I felt my edit maintained what admin Vandmonde93 had said when he was last here. When there is a difference in views, we should fairly present all available views. I identified two sides of the dispute with context, the views/beliefs of both sides, and the latest information we have on it. There is ample media coverage of the dispute from both sides to have notability and warrant fair representation for both sides. Thanks again Kbhatt22 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I set the changes back. Extended full courtesy by waiting a week again. Content was fair and balanced to represent both sides and sourced. Please engage in discussion prior to reverts please. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kbhatt22 and Harshmellow717, I went through your previous discussion and sources (here). From all the sources, it’s clear to me that the courts have ruled that Rakeshprasad is the acharya, and Ajendraprasad is no longer the acharya after the court removed him from the position in 2000 (Melton 2020, 97). I also understand that Ajendraprasad is currently challenging the acharya-ship of Rakeshprasad in court, and that this case is still ongoing. However, the fact that Ajendraprasad has to appeal to the court for reinstatement as acharya makes it clear that he isn't the acharya. The article should explicitly state that Rakeshprasad is the current acharya. Kbhatt22’s edit to the article does not make this clear and makes it seem that the post of acharya is vacant while this dispute is ongoing; it is not, according to the courts, as reported in the sources. Additionally from my readings, both Melton (2020) and Williams (2018) note that Ajendraprasad is supported by a small minority of followers, so in my opinion this current version gives this topic undue weight WP:UNDUE. The other major branches understandably don’t mention any controversies regarding guru lineage as these issues would be better suited for their respective articles. I think Harshmellow717’s version (see here) sufficiently covered both perspectives without inflating the issue. I can understand that there is sourced information that @Kbhatt22 has presented, but rather than giving the detailed version on this page, a brief summary is all that is appropriate to keep each branches’ treatment fairly equal, and the greater details could be written about on the Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi page. If you would like me to help with that, perhaps Kbhatt22 can make a first effort there, and I can take a second look at it. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Apollo1203. Hope all is well. Thank you for responding and giving me a chance to respond before making article changes. Appreciate that. In terms of Melton and Williams, their publication dates are 2018 and 2020, they both provide citation to their source material as articles from 2001 and 2005. Not discounting them but want to establish their assessment to the timeframe of their citation. I do agree the appeal has a bearing on current which is why my edit explicitly states that Ajendraprasad is "restrained from enjoying the rights of acharya" as 2 sources explain as well as specify that the Vadtal temple trust "has appointed Rakeshprasad to act and officiate as acharya." I would say that is clear and accurate. I see the hang up is on the word minority which I am not opposing as Melton does use that but doesn't provide an explanation on the context of minority as he also goes on to say that Ajendraprasad has a larger following in USA. The 2019 article states he also has ruling majority in Radha Raman Dev temple. I assume minority by melton is specific to a country or temple but he doesn't specify. Either way, I think Harshmellows edit does not identify the two factions of the dispute which my edit does. My does not give either undue-weight as that states all mainstream viewpoints should be represented and since the later does have more presence in the USA according to the same source you used above, it should get at least equal representation. I condensed 20 years of their dispute in 3 sentences. I had done it in 2 but was asked to add clarity which is why it is 3 sentences. Hopefully that addresses your points. Thanks again Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Early History

I made several edits in this section, mostly for clarity and to reduce redundancy. I also edited ‘Early Monasticism’ to give context for why Swaminarayan ordained paramhansas and removed details that I felt did not add clarity. Moksha88 (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed context. "Persecution" is a mischaracterisation, dramatizing the events. The involvement of the British is relevant; the harassment and violence was reduced when they arrived. The British brought the "Pax Britannica," under which the Swaminarayan movement prospered: "The new religious structure prospered in the new sociopolitical context in Gujarat. "Pax Swaminarayan" and "Pax Britannica" complemented each other"; Williams 2018, p.34. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Moksha88, rather than putting official census figures next to less verifiable claims, I think it best to stick with the census figures unless they're is some evidence that there is something wrong with the census figures. Apollo1203 (talk) 03:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, I reviewed the reference cited in the previous edit (which I believe you meant p.24, not p.34, in your talk page post). On the next page, he writes,

“Sahajanand initiated paramhansas as a temporary accommodation to the persecutions, and he ceased to ordain persons to this highest status after his position was more secure and the British government was established in Gujarat.” (Williams 2018, 25).

I also reviewed a chapter that Williams co-authored with Paramtattvadas Swami entitled, “Swaminarayan and British Contacts in Gujarat in the 1820s,” published in Swaminarayan Hinduism which recounts a report of William Hodge Mill, a contemporary British official with the words of their report in quotes.

“Both Kubersinh and Bhajananand explained that Swaminarayan followers did not ‘render railing for railing or evil for evil’. This meant that when others took advantage of their peaceful disposition by beating them violently, they were wholly dependent on the government for protection. But this was also a cause for concern as they described to Mill the ‘persecutions’ they suffered at the hands of the Gaekwar’s government, saying that they did not get support from the judges who claimed to be unable to adjudicate disputes between Vaishnavas. This need for protection against violence and injustice is further iterated in a petition sent from Swaminarayan himself in 1827 to Sir John Malcolm, governor of the Bombay Presidency.” (Paramtattvadas & Williams 2016, 65)

In both places, the word “persecution” is used to describe the mistreatment. Where both sources contradict one another is for how long the persecutions occurred. The second reference of Williams and Paramtattvadas makes it clear that persecution was still happening after the British had assumed political control of some areas of Gujarat.

So, I have made the new edit to be more accurate to both sources, Williams 2018 & Paramtattvadas and Williams 2016. Moksha88 (talk) 00:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Original swaminarayan sampraday

Shree Laxmi-Narayan Dev (Vadtal gadi) and Shree Nar-Narayan Dev (Ahmedabad gadi) are the ONLY TWO Gadis established by Lord Swaminarayan Himself. Lord Shree Swaminarayan manifested Himself at Chhapaiya, a small village, 20 kms. north of Ayodhya in U.P., on Monday, the ninth day of bright half or Chaitra of Samvat year 1837, 2nd April, 1781 at 10 Hrs. 10 Minutes at night.

It should be noted that the "Original Swaminarayan Sampraday" consists of ONLY TWO GADIS - Vadtal Gadi (Shree Laxmi-Narayan Dev gadi) and Ahmedabad Gadi (Shree Nar-Narayan Dev gadi).

The name Swaminarayan, as some try to suggest, does not indicate two names "Swami and Narayan." It is one whole full proper name of God Supreme. It means one who is omnipresent (Sarva Vyapak). In all objects, sentient (Chitt) including Aksharbrahmn, as well as non-sentient (Achit) ones are always pervaded by Him and are internally controlled by Him. Swaminarayan means one who is omnipotent (Sarva Antaryami). All objects, including Aksharbrahmn are subservient to Him. It means one who is omniscient (Sarvajna Sarvatantra Sivatantra). All objects, including Aksharbrahmn, derive power of thinking (Ichha Shakti), power of knowledge (Jyan Shakti) and power of action (Kriya Shakti) from Him. It means one who is (Ekmevadvitiya), one without a second. This meaning is explained in detail in Vachanamrut (No. 64 of Gadhada Chapter I) Desi samurai (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It is really sad to see how the content on this Wikipedia article is completely biased in the favor of baps, before 2019 this article included detailed information about every organization, breakaway groups as well as original philosophy of swaminarayan sect, no there is a lot of content which is biased and it also contradicts to the principles of original swaminarayan sampraday Desi samurai (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desi samurai: welcome. You're completely right, of course, that the BAPS is a breakaway group, with it's own peculiar beliefs. Unfortunately, some people try very hard to conceal this simple fact. In their effort of presenting BAPS, and it's guru's, as a legitimate continuation of Swaminarayan's legacy, theological nitpicking has become an important instrument, while the liberating working of bhakti is hardly explained. The 'recognition' (of the BAPS, indeed) as a separate school of Vedanta serves in this regard as another identity-marker. (For a comparison on such identity-markers, see New Perspective on Paul). Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desi samurai: Is this the 2019 article you was referring to (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swaminarayan_Sampraday&oldid=931351856)? There were a lot of problems with this article, like a lack of secondary sources. Also, there were no references to other branches within the Swaminarayan Sampradaya other than the 2 gadis, something which has been clarified before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swaminarayan_Sampradaya/Archive_1#Akshar-Purushottam_Darshan_(Previously_Edit_C).

ThaNDNman224 (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Sock-farm

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moksha88 and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Systematic NPOV review needed in the BAPS topic area. I'm going to review the edits of the past year.

• diff regarding influences

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 25 June 2021 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Can somebody please tell me what is the meaning of the term sockpuppet in Wikipedia?? Desi samurai (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Desi samurai: see WP:SOCK. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Many of the pov-edits seem to center around the Swaminarayan Bhashyam and it's articulation of the distinction between five eternal realities. While devotion to swaminarayan is the defining characteristic of the swaminarayan Sampradaya, undue emphasis is laid on this philosophic (c.q. hermeneutic) difference, with the effect of crafting a sectarian identity. And this, of course, is a central concern of the BAPS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

My changes/reasoning

I made a few changes today. It is no secret I am a bit more image focused so had kicked off an image discussion that ended based on consensus majority from a bunch of sock users. My reasoning for my changes:

• Updated verbiage for tilak meaning here and on its page. The source used and the new one added indicate that the red dot represents Lakshmi who is the female God of wealth, prosperity and fortune in Hinduism. The source makes this very clear. Baps does not associate the symbol to the female Goddess but to their "ideal devotee"/branch leader concept. The other branches hold to the "Lakshmi living inside heart of lord swaminarayan" 1 meaning that Mosher outlines on page 44 and the gadi website indicates. I didn't remove anything but simply just specified what the Baps interpretation is and the broader/original explanation is.
• Current acharya stuff was rightfully moved to a note, it had gotten overly lengthy, so updated image to what was there before the back and forth with the socks.
• Updated the image in the growth section to include one that has Swaminarayan, acharya, and ascetics. I kicked off a massive image discussion last year because 9/10 images on the page were pro-Baps. Full disclosure, one of the banned socks had proposed this originally, possibly a staged discussion looking back at it. The image I removed is on the page twice. "Swaminarayan and his senior disciples" was just a blown up cutout of the vanchamrut cover further down in the article. The new image can represent a concept that could make its way onto the page. Like Islam, Swaminarayan has 5 pillars too. reference to 5 pillars. I need to do more reading on if its a legit thing first but early reading indicates the 5 pillars are "disciples, saints, acharya, temples and scriptures". The new image does include more of those then the image that was there.

Kbhatt22 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The last 2 paragraphs in Brahmarūpa can be collapsed possibly. It lists interpretations of Baps, then Gadis, then Baps again, then other gadi. I don't know the best way to combine/order. Kbhatt22 (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kbhatt22:, you're right, I noticed that too. I'll change it. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

1 - This change set is just removing the excess details promoting the one branch over the rest and simplifies it down. The section lists the various charity wings across the branches but then lists specific examples of only one. There is already a specific page for that charity group (that reads like a marketing brochure) so its a little excess here. Kbhatt22 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Hindu Sect Is Accused of Using Forced Labor to Build N.J. Temple"

For future inclusion: Hindu Sect Is Accused of Using Forced Labor to Build N.J. Temple, New York Times. See also diff, Talk:Swaminarayan Akshardham (North America)#Removed - 2021 forced labor controversy, and Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha#Worker Exploitation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like they are violating labor laws even in India https://www.counterview.net/2021/05/us-swaminarayan-network-responsible-for.html - "What is more shocking is to know that their passports were being confiscated by the employer to restrict their freedom. Most workers who do not know English must have very hard time. Their right to work with dignity was robbed from them." and "They [workers] are exposed to dangerous levels of silica dust which is not monitored. Hundreds of stone workers have been victims of silicosis and have died prematurely" Freighting and appalling to say the least. Kbhatt22 (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Been dealing with covid related hurdles and been out of the wiki loop. Sorry. Just got dinged about another page and poked around briefly to see whats up. Few interesting articles around swaminarayan in the news recently.

-https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/10/nyregion/baps-hindu-forced-labor.html

-https://apnews.com/article/business-california-texas-illinois-india-082617aee0e4226f8aecafb7ee0f250b

Not saying it should be on the page but interesting to say the least. The RICO act is reserved for organized crime and racketeering crimes so lot to unpack there. Hopeful to get a kick back in my step and can come back to contribute meaningfully soon. Kbhatt22 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)