Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, is not a part of Swaminaryan Samprday. Only Shree NarNarayan Gadi and Shree Laxminarayan Gadi are part of Shree Swaminarayan Samprday. Others using Swaminarayan name are formed by “Vimukh” sadhus and are not part of the Swaminarayan. There is a law suit pending in Nadiad court against BAPS, seeking enforcement of the injunction once granted in Borsad Court. The current legal pending proccedings were intiated by Acharya Maharaj Shree Ajendraprasdji in 1999 case number 631/99. The attempt by VAdtal Temple Trustee Board to withdraw the lawsuit has been rejected by the court as the legal action was initiated by Acharya Maharaj Shree Ajendraprasdji and not by the Vadtal Trustee Board. Also the attempt by the same trustee board to replace the name as Acharya as Rakeshprasad was also rejected by the court. There are several other legal issues pending regarding ownership of certain temples and Property between the BAPS and Vadtal Desh and Gadhada Desh Temples. Also it is BAPS and not BAPSS! BAPS stands for Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Sanstha and not Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha. BAPS is a major large international organization which does not follow same beliefs as the Swaminarayan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.93.190 (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, could u pl. quote a neutral source. If u can v cld add this to the BAPS page on wikipedia (the Swaminarayan page wld nt b the place for this). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That is true, however it is a part of the Swaminarayan sect so it does deserve a place on this article. Also it is a major organization World (talk • contributions) 18:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

True it is a major organisation, however its an issue more concerning BAPS, I suggested that Vadtal related infor b listed on the Vadtal Gadi page and I think the same should apply here if a neutral source is available. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 20:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lead issues

The length was increased per the GA suggestion above. If u luk @ the refs (Williams: 35, 36 and page 54) .. it amounts to what was put on. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

MoS

I had arranged the pictures according to WP:MoS, however I was reverted. Pl. state reasons for the revert. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

Following to the above I would include the following:

While rules of the Shikshapatri forbid Sahajanand Swami's followers to criticize deities or to listen to such criticism,(Williams p. 95) some criticism from outside of the tradition was noted. In particular those who do not support the doctrine of faith as to the spiritual insight can not see merit in merging of the images and stories of Sahajanand Swami and Krishna or accepting the absolute divinity of Sahajanand Swami.(Williams p. 77)

Sahajanand while in complience with Ramanuja was critical of Shankaracharya concept of advaita and maintained that the supreme person is not formless.(Williams p. 79) In opposition to this he taught that god always has a divine form.(Williams p. 79) This is was later opposed by the aksar concept of Aksar Purusottama Sanistha.(Williams p. 84)

Within the tradition itself BAPS style of worship was criticized for opulent dresses of the images of Gunatitanand and other forms, mainly because it is known that they were historically wearing simple dresses.(Williams p. 95) Several decades after formation of the movement Swami Dayananda questioned acceptance of Sahajanand as a Supreme Being and did not approve that visions of Sahajanand would amount to the same effects as the traditional methods of attaining perfection. Accused of deviation or placing a wrong accent from the Vedas his followers were criticised for illegal collection of wealth and "practice of frauds and tricks".Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. pp. 141–143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3. In the views Swami Dayananda, published as early as 1875, it was a "historical fact" that Sahajanand would decorate himself as Narayana in order to gain followers.Narayan, Kirin (1992). Storytellers, Saints and Scoundrels. Motilal Banarsidass,India. p. 143. ISBN 81-208-1002-3.

While many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles, Sahajanand himself despite considerable criticism from his own contemporary society, who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women", insisted on alternative views to social religious education was the inherent right of all people. Rudert, A. "eCommons@Cornell: Inherent Faith and Negotiated Power: Swaminarayan Women in the United States". ecommons.cornell.edu. Retrieved 2009-05-10. Chapter 1. (2004)

Thanks for the research Wikidas, this can be formed into a new section, along with the following figures per the above talk with Redtiger - what do you think? Only thing I would say is BAPs style of worship is WP:UNDUE here, it should go on the BAPS page - this page should have criticism on the deity. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

GA

I have replaced Narnarayan Dev with Nara Narayana (except NarNarayan Dev Gadi) and Sahajanand Swami with Swaminarayan in the article (pl. ch any tht may be left out due to oversight) except in the life section bttn Nilkanth Varni and Swaminarayan, whch is essential. I am now awaiting OTRS for Bhudiya2's images (whch hes left a msg on my talk page saying hes looking into), otherwise I feel per World above, the article is ready for the GA review. Pl state any further issues if any that may come in way of the GA. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Questionable reliability of Nair book is still a major problem. Its publisher AuthorHouse is a self-publishing company, based in the United States, that is, the author can pay and get whatever he wants printed.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Why don't just remove this source if it can not be backed up by other RS? Wikid^as© 09:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It covers a lot of vital info. I will try to cover it with another RS. Where not possible the best I can do is to cover it with a Swaminarayan faith website. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the article and info provided by Nair is not that critical. Wikid^as© 10:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Where there is another ref, just remove Nair ref and for others, I am replacing with . So it is easy to know references are needed for what info.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The section Swaminarayan#Societal_Reforms has problems in tone, POV, OR. For ex : "All followers of Swaminarayan to this day are lacto vegetarians", is not neutral and will be challenged. This can be paraphrased as, "Swaminarayan stressed lacto vegetarianism among his followers". (and a ref needs to be added). (We are not sure if all of them follow this) Also, "Improvement of festivities" seems unencyclopedic and POV, In a neutral way, this section if we have a RS can be written as, "Swaminarayan and his disciples composed devotional poems which are widely sung by the tradition during festivals. During his period Swaminarayan was noted for improving the moral values of the youth. He also introduced fasting and devotion."Another thing on "indecent songs". We dont know who composed these "indecent" songs, and this sentence gives the impression that generally the songs were vulgar, which is not the case and several poets and mystics very famous during this era. Also the sentence "This invariably corrupted young minds" seems OR. So I will be paraphrasing the section "Improvement of festivities", if anybody finds a RS, pls add it. --Nvineeth (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with ref "Times Music cassette on Swaminarayan serial launched" says "philosophy of lord swaminarayan has been made to spread the message of uplift of poor given by sahajanand swami". The article says "Swaminarayan worked for the upliftment of the poor, distribution of food and drinking water to the needy." The ref says the message was given, NOT that the message was followed by Swaminaryan himself. Need more explicit references.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nvineeth, thanks, Iv incorporated ur suggestions into the article. Redtiger, how is this: [1] and [2] ? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I have an issue with ^ "education of females" reference - it seems to be of a poor quality, maybe something in Williams can be found or in other source? Wikid^as© 08:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is info in the Williams book - but Iv not bothered to add that cauz the present ref is published by the Harvard University Press - so I took it to be a neutral ref. Could you. pl state your concern bout the ref Wikidas? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think, wikidas meant the vadtal website. At first glance, the two refs above seem fine. I am a little busy these days. I request Nvineeth and wikidas to check Swaminarayan websites used as references, they may lack neutrality and may glorify their founder. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Separating Swaminarayan's historical life and mythology

IMO, we need to shift "Curse and manifestation of Narayana" section from the "Life" section to make a clear distinction between his historical life and mythology for NPOV. The belief that he is a god, can be put in Following section or section about his worship. IMO, a section about the iconography of images of Swaminarayan, is needed. "Important Hindu scriptures such as the Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavata Purana confirm that Narayana descends in human form to destroy evil though there is no direct reference to Swaminarayan." is probably a case of Wikipedia:SYNTH (no mention in Williams p.77). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we could shift it into another section. Several Swaminarayan websites back that statement: [3] among several others. The Williams ref does speak of the Srimad Bhagwat (or Bhagavata Purana). Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to move it, also if a neutral source to be used to rewrite this section it will help e.g. first a neutral view and then view of the sect in the same section. Wikid^as© 17:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidas, I see you have taken the lead and done that. I have received a msg from Bhudiay2 tday saying hes followed up for the permissions for his pictures: now that leaves nothing else, unless someone can spot something more. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 22:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 review

Redtigerxyz's review

I was requested to look in this article again for suggestions. (The editors are free to ignore them - they are just suggestions)

• The lead size looks good now, should not be shorter or longer. Although the sentence "According to Sir John Malcolm, Governor of Bombay, Swaminarayan had helped bring some stability to a lawless region" is clearly an WP:UNDUE in the lead. Put it somewhere else
• When I read the title "Iconographic scheme", I felt it was about the iconography of Swaminarayan, it was totally different. That section should discuss Swaminarayan murti's iconography. Temple architecture (current section) should be merged in Temples --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strike things now done.
• About the recent edit war: I fill "Desh Vibhag Lekh part" is WP:UNDUE in lead. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Temples can be split as: Temples built by and temples dedicated to Swaminarayan
• Succession
  • Swaminarayan Sampraday section is to the point
  • The legal dispute between Akshar Prushottam group and the Swaminarayan Sampraday, a dispute in which Swaminarayan is not part of the legal purpose, is an WP:UNDUE in this article.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions.

• The lead was expanded per the suggestion that more should added, about this worship, the sect he established, his teachings, his other work like temple construction, his books: if its enough then no need to look @ tht.

• OK, will merge tht.

• There is just a couple of lines to distinguish and to give a foundation to the splits part. It was added to the lead per above, if the leads enough then no need for it there.

• Also, another point tht need to be looked into (i feel) is the refs .. m working on tht.

• Would req. ur views on the pictures ..

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Image review: Images by User:AroundTheGlobe
  • Is File:Sahajanand Swami.jpg a photo of a frame? A silver thing is possibly reflected in the pic near the sandals
  • File:Dharmadev and Bhaktimata.jpg: missing date of creation. If "Swaminarayan Sampraday. Permission has been obtained from copyright holder to use this image on Wikipedia under GFDL. Email confirming the same has been sent to permissons-en [at] wikipedia [dot] org.", then author of the photo should have been Swaminarayan Sampryada. Also write name of specific Swaminarayan Sampraday office (site) from which permission was obtained. OTRS token is not received yet.
  • File:Nilkanth Varni.JPG has the OTRS, but no info about the author, source, date etc.
  • File:Shikshapatri.jpg, File:Vadtaltemple.jpg has no OTRS token. Author should be Swaminarayan Sampradaya if the source is that

• Other images by Bhudiya2
  • File:Lord.JPG: no source, no descrip. It's hist shows: uploaded as "copyright Swaminarayan Sampraday2005", now it is "Created for the Swaminarayan Sampraday". Wasn't this the img that claimed to be created in 1940?
  • File:Shree Swaminarayan Sampraday, Ahmedabad.jpg: copyright violation of [4]. No OTRS token
  • File:NN2.JPG, File:Ghanshyam.JPG has no OTRS token, no acknowledgement of source and author--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

My Images.

• Iv sent emails earlier for OTRS, in fact just at the start of this week I sent an email for OTRS for 67 images!

• File data can be sorted.

• As for Sahajanand Swami, you may be right - its an image from a website taken under permission.

Images by Bhudiya2:

• I do no tht he too had permission for GFDL images from the Swaminarayan Sampraday admin (www [dot] swaminarayan [dot] info) - the site u mention tht he has copy vioed from is also part of the Swaminarayan Sampraday.

• I removed the date from the article yest cauz there was no proof of it.

• I have put a msg on Bhudiya2's talk page requesting him to follow up on all his OTRS tokens as well.

Any further issues .. (any MoS probs or is the placing OK)? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you can take permission for the images uploaded by Bhudiya2 too. Bhudiya2 from his/her contribution pattern is not a every day editor and may take time for OTRS. I have removed the copyvio tag for now. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

• Looking into the OTRS. I think that the OTRS is now the only major roadblock left. I have expanded and improved the article, adding neutral refs wherever possible (this includes most of the article). Does anyone see any further issues? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• "According to legend, it was events that took place at Badarikashram," According to legend is too vague. Some Swaminarayan text must have this story, right? According to legend can also be rephrased in more neutral way as "According to the Swaminarayan sect"
• "Writers such as K. K. Nair in his book Sages Through Ages - Volume III have also called Swaminarayan an incarnation of Krishna." has no real value since K K Nair does not seem to be a scholar. I am not sure if K. K. Nair is a scholar, his book reads like devotee literature. Establish reliability of K. K. Nair's book. Compare it with Raymond Brady Williams's book which is a RS. Raymond Brady Williams is a professor of religion. Dr Dermott Killingley is also a established scholar, a speaker on Hinduism in universities
• http://www.vadtal.com/about-sampraday.html is a dead link (ref 19)
• references are not needed in the lead, if the same fact is stated in the article.

--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Good suggestion, thanks

• K.K. Nair has written 5 books (volumes) on the subject [5] [6]. This link [7] says "These five volumes on the Saints and Seers of India is a wonderful collection of thrilling stories, patiently written over a period of five years by the author K.K. Nair.". Though the writing does sound devotee type, he looks to be a researcher on the subject and the publisher AuthorHouse too seems to be reputed having published works of over 40,000 writers. Maybe the sentence can be reworded without naming him or the book. Writer of Dying, death and bereavement in a British Hindu community also indicates something similar on page 16 [8]

• Its covered by the Williams book anyways.

• thanks for the info (bit late though .. added refs all ovr the lead!)

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• All the links about K K Nair are to websites selling his books. They are certainly not neutral. I still object to the use of Nair book and question it's neutrality and relaibility. Prove the book's /author's relaibility. Ways to do that:
  • A review by an established journal or newspaper
  • The background of K K Nair to prove he is a scholar
  • More at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches
• I think "Rules for Ascetics" is an WP:UNDUE here. More suitable in sampradaya article
• I see sometimes "Sahajanand Swami", sometimes the name "Swaminarayan". Also NarNarayan Dev and Nara-Narayana. Agree on consistent names
• "According to Raymond Williams, Swaminarayan centres exist on four continents and have a total following of over five million and a saint order of well over 3,000.[55] The Indian Express listed members of the Swaminarayan faith number over 20 million (2 crore) worldwide.[56]" is inappropariate in Temples section. Create some Legacy section where this is discussed. Also his worship as God
• Swaminarayan Scriptures discusses only two texts in detail. Write a little about the other texts too, like what Muktanand Kavya is about: a sentence. "Muktanand Kavya, Nishkulanand Kavya and Bhakta Chintamani among others." Mention the others
• The whole article needs a copyright: there are missing punctuation marks, sections suddenly starting with "he" (who he?), then second sentence has Swamminarayan name. It should the other way round: always start the para with a noun not pronoun.
• I think "Swaminarayan Ascetics" can be renamed as "Paramhansas"
• "During Krishna Janmashtami, people gambled and went to fairs. Swaminarayan brought in fasting and devotion." This is clearly an overstatement: so many regions in India do not have any influence of Swaminarayan, still have and have had bhakti and fasting on Krishna Janmashtami. Did Swaminarayan really bring devotion on Krishna Janmashtami to Dwarka, Mathura or in the South
• "This was a boon during times of drought and brought him many disciples" "Boon" is an opinion, a glorification, the fact is "Swaminarayan gave food and water to people during during times of drought, which won him many disciples"--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Iv not come across any reviews of his book. His book says (page 183 - about the author) that he ha a 1st class MA in History, Politics and Economics from Annamalai University and has won a couple of awards. Hes been a journo with Indian Express, Times of India and Arab news. Also says he wrote this book after coming in touch with Mata Amritanandamayi who features on the front cover of the book. All of the facts in his book double check those of Swaminarayan websites (like the Williams book - only the Williams book is a lot more polished). As I said - if theres doubt abt the author then we can remove his quote.

• OK, will move tht.

• Good idea. Wikidas suggested a para on acceptability - maybe this can go there.

• There are over 3000 scriptures written by Swaminarayan ascetics - so we can name only the top few.

• Yes, without the above para tht makes sense.

• Here it talks of his followers - your right needs to be reworded (both).

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes it becomes confusing to me, which of your bullet points tally to mine (I have 9, you have 5). So bullet your replies so they exactly correspond to my queries.

• About Nair, need a third party review of his scholarship or book. I strongly question the reliability of his book and all "facts" referenced by his book. Easy solution remove refs and replace by another RS
• "3000 scriptures written by Swaminarayan ascetics" I am talking about only the founder's writings NOT about his followers'. "Bhagawan" Swaminarayan must have written afinite no. of texts.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - will keep tht in mind.

• Looking for other refs.

• He only wrote the Shikshapatri himself. Vachanamrut is his discourses penned by others, Satsangi Jeevan his authorised biography and the other ones are some of the notable ones of his time. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is a difference between the texts of the sect and the texts by the founder. This article should only texts composed by Swaminarayan or on him. The line "There are many scriptures that were written by Swaminarayan" gave me the expression that many scriptures were written by him, 1 is not many. So reword to have a clear distinction between the text written by Swaminarayan and texts written about him or his followings. Also the word "scriptures" is a POV. They are plain texts outside the sect, although it should acknowledged that they are scriptures within the sect.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
• Can "Swaminarayan Paramhansas" can termed as "prominent followers/ Disciples" to remove jargon? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

* OK, i see you hv done tht anyways. Im sorry I dint realise tht sentence: it is many within the sect, many on him and at his time, but only Shikshapatri written by him.

• That is why I renamed it Swaminarayan Ascetics (as the section does not have info on non-ascetic followers).

• The OTRS team has sorted out the pics tht I req permission for. I recd. a msg from Bhudya2 yest on my talk page tht he is following up on his, hence Iv left tht to him :)

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Issues in references

I think the citations should be double checked, for example I found the following issues in the lead,

• In the sentence, "...is the founder of the Swaminarayan Sampraday in which followers offer devotion to Swaminarayan as the supreme god.[3]", ^{Dermott Killingley and Lloyd Ridgeon (2003). Major World Religions. Routledge. ISBN 0415297966. Retrieved November 1, 2008.} does not support the statement.

• Also, "In 1826 he wrote the Shikshapatri,a book of social laws that his followers should follow."^{[M. G. Chitkara (1997). Hindutva. APH. Retrieved May 5, 2009. Page 230] [Rae A. Earnshaw, John Vince (2008). Digital Convergence - Libraries of the Future. Springer. Retrieved May 5, 2009. Page 5]} -- The references do not talk about the year.

• It is believed that on the 1 June 1830, Swaminarayan gathered all his followers and announced decision to take Samādhi and did so after making this announcement. ^{Dinkar Joshi, Yogesh Patel (2005). Glimpses of Indian Culture. Star Publications. Retrieved May 7, 2009. Page 92, 93} -- again does not say anything about "samadhi", "gathered all his followers", "decision". p.92 simply says, "voluntarily left the world", so "samadhi" is a WP:SYNTH. Also note that the date in reference is June 28, but the article says, 1 June.

Also the page numbers should be a part of the citation template, see {{cite book}}. It is better to cleanup the extensive search queries in the google book urls. The entire article needs to be checked for issues like this. --Nvineeth (talk) 10:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• followers offer devotion to Swaminarayan as the supreme god is supported by Major World religions - page 27/28. Will find another source for the 1st part of the statement

• See Hindutva, page 228.

• The date is wrong - other books confirm it as 1 June, 1830 (including official Swaminarayan websites). are other websites that support that he took Samadhi. p.92 says "sat down in Padmasan, the lotus posture and volutarily left this world", which is the description of Samadhi, just without the word!

Thanks for your input - anthing further you would like to add? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• • I think that the page nos should be updated / specified correctly, or else it leads to a different section in the book like what happened with me. For ex: page no of Major World religions is missing.
  • If the date is incorrect, its better to use other reference(s). Yes, "sat down in Padmasan, the lotus posture and voluntarily left this world" can be interpreted as samadhi, but at the same time this will qualify as WP:SYNTH.
• Its better to replace elaborate search urls, with actual links to pages, consider this vs this.

Thanks. --Nvineeth (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Updated the link.

• [9] and [10] confirm what the book (Glimpses of Indian Culture) stating "sat down in Padmasan, the lotus posture and voluntarily left this world". It may be best to replace samadhi with this sentence in the article.

• thanks for the suggestion, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The page number of this reference — Om Gupta (2006). Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Isha Books. Retrieved May 8, 2009. Page 328, 329 — seems to be incorrect, the book itself begins with three thousand odd page nos., --Nvineeth (talk) 15:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Also the page numbers should be a part of the citation template, see {{cite book}}. It is better to cleanup the extensive search queries in the google book urls. "

This is what I meant above, for single pages use, "p.1" and for several contiguous pages use, "pp.1-2". Also in the previous diff, one will notice that long google books search urls have been replaced with links to the related pages and unnecessary parameters in the url have been removed. Happy cleanup. --Nvineeth (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Corrected page nos for the above book. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Some considerations

I would suggest that proportion of material that is related but is not about Svami Narayan himself is disproportionate in this article. Size would not matter so much for GA but relevance of material (ie it should about this subject). It could be that the biographical information and corrections to other parts can be considered.

I would look at MoS as in regard of Sections and captalization of sections.

There is a further consideration on NPOV - there could be a slight single perspective in most sections. It would be beneficial to include critical views is some sections or a separate section on criticism of his policies (if there are RS for it) or current conflicts. It will also make it more interesting to read - not the conflict withing the sect, but more on the for example acceptance of SN as Hindu deity. Certainly there is some evidence of a conflict there, but if it is reflected in a neutral way it will help with regards of making the article neutral.

Suggestions above by Redtiger seem to be very important too. But I agree it is not anymore a regional Deity, it has become international:-)

--Wikid^as© 18:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for ur feedback Wikidas. I think a section on his non-acceptance in some quarters among Hindus may be appropriate - will look for an RS. I wld disagree on the material - yes its quality not size that matters - however, whatever is on is related to Swaminarayan and a lot of non relevant stuff has been removed. Could you pl. look into MoS? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 20:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think spelling of Sanskrit names (to be as per other instances in Wikipedia) and besides the subheadings all other instances of capitalization to be considered on case per case basis -- normally words are not capitalized without a good reason. Yes making it a bit neutral and getting some explanation/introduction to sections that don't seem to be directly related to him (for a common reader) could help. Wikid^as© 12:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with the following statements:

Nilkanth's understanding of the metaphysical and epistemological concepts of the pancha-tattvas, five eternal entities, combined with the level of his mental and physical discipline are said to have inspired even the senior sadhus of Ramanand Swami. (even if it is in the source?)

and

When chanting this mantra, the devotees went into samadhi and could see their personal god, even though they had no knowledge of Astanga Yoga.[10][28] (samadhi is the perfection of yoga, is it a belief -- sounds like a fact for an indefinite number of devotees)

and

Swaminarayan maintained good relations with people from all religions and met heads of other religions. (he did have conflicts with some Hindus and was opposed by some Muslims obviously and as per sources)

Some other sections need to have some attention as far as grammar and style is concerned (by someone who has good command of the language).

Let me know what you think... --Wikid^as© 00:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

1. if we remove "even" shld be fine - sourced from Williams.

2. several sources, including Williams back this statement.

3. The Hindus he did hv a prob with were ones who believed in Animal sacrifice and I dont no of any Muslims who opposed him or any source tht says tht: pl expand.

4. Yes, tht wld b gr8.

Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 10:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

3.-- I reworded it so it appear more realistic. Wikid^as© 17:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

consistent name

"I see sometimes "Sahajanand Swami", sometimes the name "Swaminarayan". Also NarNarayan Dev and Nara-Narayana. Agree on consistent names" I think Swaminarayan should replace Sahajanand Swami throughout. Any objections? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It goes back to the original debate on the name of the article. One name should be used normally. But I would suggest that before he was knows as SN he should be called as "Sahajanand Swami". If it was up to me I would have the article called "Sahajanand Swami" and used it throughout but consensus is consensus so "Sahajanand Swami" is only intermediate name. But consistency will be helpful. Wikid^as© 13:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Swaminarayan is what we should use per Redtiger. For Narnarayan Dev and Nara Narayana: we can use Nara Narayana everywhere except when referring to NarNarayan Dev Gadi - cauz thts the name. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The spelling "NarNarayan" violates English's basic rule of having a capital only at the start.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I support Redtiger -- it is one of the obvious things that will annoy not only GA review man but anyone who is not part of the gajja sub culture of SN. Following from that I would even go over and explain and minimize number of these, too many Sanskrit and special words for anyone to follow. There are quite a few spelling mistakes and grammar is not too good. Also spellings like Sampradaya should be used rather Sampraday (even if it is used a lot in the sect). Someone has to read it over. Wikid^as© 16:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree. While reading through it, I ignored the spellings trying to figure out why some places had certain spellings. Besides this I think the article is ready for GA World (talk • contributions) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

However on the NarNarayan, the official spelling is like this. So I agree with ATG here World (talk • contributions) 12:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There are no NarNarayan spellings in academic sources, while it is possible that some sectarian sources have this spelling, but we will not spell everything they way they do in India will we? Wikid^as© 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A space bttn NaNarayan, as Nar Narayan seems fine, infact I have incorporated it into Nar Narayan Dev Gadi and Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi articles titles as well. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Oragnization

"Swaminarayan ascetics": I am sure if the section important enough to be above even "Beliefs". --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree, Iv juz moved it down. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Automated PR

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Per Wikipedia:What is a featured article?, Images should have concise captions.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • is considered
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), neighbour (B) (American: neighbor), organize (A) (British: organise), criticize (A) (British: criticise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), categorize (A) (British: categorise), traveled (A) (British: travelled).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • “In the year [of] 1825”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Texts

Are Muktanand Kavya, Nishkulanand Kavya and Bhakta Chintamani related to Swaminaryan - how?--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prominent scriptures approved by Swaminarayan. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LEDE

Can someone put in critics views, controversies or relevant summary of the same in the Lead section, it needs to reflect all the such; at the moment it does not. -- Wikid^as© 00:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

With the new avatar of article (new sections), the lead needs to be rewritten. I noticed today that so much is talked about Swaminarayan's death, but nothing exists about it in the rest of the article (A section in Life is necessary about the last days of Swaminarayan). As a basic rule, the lead should be a summary of the article and have almost nothing new. see WP:LEAD for more. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes article did change since the LEDE was written, LEDE is the summary and thus it needs to be rewritten to become LEDE to this article. I suggest ATG and World to write a proposal here/below and once agreed we just update it once, it will prove that article is stable. Wikid^as© 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Wikidas. I will coordinate with World and follow up on this. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 22:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime we can place {{intro-rewrite}} on the article. What you think? Summary is very important for the article. Wikid^as© 16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Il just req World to hurry it up and work sumthing out quick so theres no need to tag the article. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 19:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am working to fix minor mistakes I find throughout the article. DOnt be overwhelmed by my number of edits. I am trying to work on the article's flow and mainly on grammatical mistakes. World (talk • contributions) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As per the lead of the article, I agree, it should serve as a summary of the article. I think it accomplishes that pretty well. It gives an overview of his life. Also the section of his death is present right before the section on the Swmainarayan Mantra. I don't see what else could be added. SOrry I haven't ben on wiki for some time. I got caught up in some work World (talk • contributions) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Following ones are crossed over - they are already in the lead - underlined need to be reflected, other sections are to be considered:

1 Life

: 1.1 Childhood as Ghanshyam

1.2 Travels as Nilkanth Varni

1.3 Leadership as Sahajanand Swami

1.4 Swaminarayan mantra

2 Relations with other religions and the British Government

: 2.1 Other religions

2.2 Relation with the Government

: 3 Temples

3.1 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Ahmedabad

3.2 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Bhuj

3.3 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Vadtal

3.4 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Dholera

3.5 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Junagadh

3.6 Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, Gadhada

3.7 Other Temples

4 Texts

: 4.1 Shikshapatri

4.2 Vachanamrut

5 Beliefs

: 5.1 Manifestation of Narayana

5.2 Fundamentals of the Swaminarayan philosophy

: 6 Swaminarayan ascetics : 7 Societal Reforms

7.1 Upliftment of the poor and women

7.2 Animal sacrifices and yajnas

7.3 Improvement of festivities

7.4 Caste system

7.5 Moksha and miracles

: 8 Following and criticism

9 Succession

9.1 Swaminarayan Sampraday

: 9.2 Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha and others -- Wikid^as© 21:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Iv added the underlined stuff to the lead as well as a bit on the Manifestation of Narayan. I dont c anything left out, does anybody else? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते}

I think the article is ready. The only problem I see currently is maybe an intro that is way too long. I think it suites the article perfectly but it may challenge the article's status in the future. World (talk • contributions) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot

The bot archiving this talk page does not seem to work! Discussions dating back to 2008 have still not been archived. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes, so hopefully, the automated archiving will work now. Cheers, [sd] 01:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

June 28, 2009 Edits

I know I made too, way too many edits, but the majority of them deal with wording issues, flow, grammar, and punctuation. Major edits I made include mergind two sections. This section about Moksha and Miracles was too short and a little repetitive when compared to the article. SO I move the moksha part up witht the caste system because it was about how any person (or a person of any caste could reach moksha with Swaminarayan techings). I also added a picture of the paramhansas and added prominent paramhansas (well notable for the works throughout the sect) in a sentence to that section. World (talk • contributions) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Iv changed the title of the Caste System section to reflect the merge. I removed the pic cauz it was a bit too crammed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand why the whole section on BAPS and others were removed. These are vital to the article to maintain a non-POV view due to differences in belief. The new section only breifly touched on BAPS and some other group while there are so many views while mainly talking about the Swaminarayan Sampraday. These are vital to maintaining a non-POV view of the succession of Swaminarayan. Even Williams states in his book that the two groups are of similar size, so oth ajor organizations but be mentioned at similar amounts World (talk • contributions) 19:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In addition to this, I do not see how seperating the temples and ascetics section made things too crammed. I was trying to follow the format of the article. The Scriptures section has subsections for the different scriptures. Temples and Ascetics are two completely different topics and therefore should be seperated into subsections. Paramhansa were vital in spreading faith and seem to be hidden within the temples section. World (talk • contributions) 19:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1. - any issues with the succession section pl. refer the GA review currently under way. 2. Equal in size - Williams book on the Swaminrayan Sampraday - "The Swaminarayan Sampraday has over 3.5 million followers worldwide. It has more followers, both householders and saints, and support more large temples than the other Swaminarayan groups." This is not to say whether or not the succession part be changed - just to correct the above statement. 3. With 2 pictures it seemed very crammed. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Williams in his books mentions that both groups are of comparable sizes. ANd saying that the Sampraday has larger temples is just wrong. Akshardham Delhi is the largest hindu temple inINdia according to the Guiness book of World Records. Not only that BAPS has large scale temples in Ahemdabad, Mumbai, other Indian cities and vllages, North America, Africa, and London. I am not saying the Sampraday has smaller temples but both groups are considerably of similar size and influence in Hinduism. Both, therefore, need to share about the same amount of information so that both can be widely covered. In addition it helps maintain NPOV in the article. Many people from the Sampraday and BAPS read this article. Both want their views expressed. World (talk • contributions) 02:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• look, I mentioned I was not getting into a debate here - just quoting from Williams. Please list any further comments on the GA review page, where this was suggested. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 09:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is essentially an article on Swaminarayan, NOT on the sampradaya and BAPS. Swaminarayan established the sampradaya, NOT BAPS. So sampradaya will have more weight in the article. The differences in the sampradaya and BAPS should go in Swaminarayan Faith, NOT here. This should be noted BAPS is formed almost 75 yrs after Swaminarayan's death and does not reflect the immmediate succession of Swaminarayan, which needs to discussed in detail compared to the BAPS. No one is disputing that BAPS is a prime organization in the Faith, but this is not the place to discuss it. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand this is not a place to debate it and I am not trying to, but I feel it will lead to problems in the future. Also, Swaminarayan's succession is essential to the article. People of the BAPS faith beileve that Swaminarayan directly handed over his leadership to Gunatitanand Swami. Now this did occur during Swaminarayan's lifetime. To maintain a nonPOV on the article, this must be mentioned. BAPS believes that the Acharyas are political figureheads and Gunatitianand Swami was the spiritual figurehead. This key difference must be noted. World (talk • contributions) 19:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture Size

Why are the pictures so big? They are over pixalized (or whatever the word may be to describe them/ too many pixals?) World (talk • contributions) 01:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The first 4 do look HUGE. I am reducing the size, anyone with issues, revert. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Could v stick to imgs of Swaminarayans time to match the info - all abt his time. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

External Links

Most featured articles and even GAs have more external links at the end of the article. This section needs expansion. See Akshardham Delhi. I think the external links should look something like this World (talk • contributions) 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Page move: "Ghanshyam pande (swaminarayan)"

An editor apparently wanted to move this article to a new title, from Swaminarayan to Ghanshyam pande (swaminarayan), which I've now reverted. That move was inappropriate for two reasons. First, major moves like that whoch are likely to be contentiuous should be discussed first. Second, it was a "cut and paste" move which would have lost the authorship information. So please discuss the proposed move, and then get a neutral party to do the actual move. Wikipedia:Requested moves contains instructions.   Will Beback  talk  16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support the move of page to Ghanshyam pande (swaminarayan), because 'Ghanshyam pande' was his real name and hence it should be mentions in the title --Ghanshyamji (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: User Ghanshyamji has been blocked for sock puppetry. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be the real name, but it is not the most common. Also, Swaminarayan's name changed to Sahajanand Swami as a result of his innitiation as a sadhu. ^The World 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Disapprove: Check the archieves. Their have already been huge debates over the title of this article. Swaminarayan has been the consnesus of these debates, as it is the most common name ^The World 18:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Defies common sense! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 19:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: Consensus on the talk. Check archives. Talk:Swaminarayan/Archive_1#Requested Move--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: Moving from a name everyone knows to a virtually unknown one doesn't make sense. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph

I propose following changes for the introductory lines of the aricle
Because these are the basic things one should know about swamiji

For infobox:
{{Infobox Person| name= '''Ghanshyam Pande''' <br> swaminarayan (by followers)

For introduction:
Swaminarayan(Gujarati: સ્વામિનારાયણ, Devanagari: स्वामीनारायण, IAST: Svāmīnārāyaṇa) (Aka Ghanshyam Pande) (Gujarati: ઘનશ્યામ પાંડે, Devanagari: घनश्याम पांडे IAST: ɡʱⁿɕjm paːnɖeː) (2 April 1781 – 1 June 1830), also known as Sahajanand Swami, was an spiritual teacher,founder of the Swaminarayan Faith,(he made) his followers call him as Bhagwan. Within the faith, Ghanshyam Pande is venerated as an incarnation of Narayana, from the Nara Narayana deity pair. Ghanshyam Pande is also known by the names , Ghanshyam Maharaj, Shreeji Maharaj, Hari Krishna Maharaj and Shri Hari.After formation of the swaminarayan movement,hindu leaders like Swami Dayananda questioned acceptance of Ghanshyam Pande as a supreme being, disapproving of the idea that visions of Ghanshyam Pande could form a path to attaining perfection.

--Ghanshyamji (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, the gram is terrible. Also it questions the neutrality of the article. The Swami Dayanand Section is too long (its not the focus of the article) The IAST has been changed to the something the doensn't show pronounciation. He didn't make his followers call him Bhagwan^The World 19:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Pl. explain the basis of your proposal - what references have you referred to? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 20:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox already has birth name. Devanagari and gujarati for Ghanshyam pande can be included. Swami Dayananda is already mentioned in the lead (that is enough). Swami Dayananda was a religious leader should be stated in the current lead. "founder of the Swaminarayan Faith" needs to be in the first sentence, central figure is too vague. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Manifestation

As a lot of info was moved from this article to Swaminarayan Hinduism, I felt it important to encompass some information on the organisation Swaminarayan founded, hence formed a new manifestation section where this is included. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The title "Swaminarayan a manifestation" is a SN. POV. I suggest the things about leadership be put in Leadership as Sahajanand Swami and the belief he is a god manifest in following. Implementing it. Take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

To an extent I would agree with Redtiger, then again I would think it necessary to distinguish the Sahajanand Swami and Swaminarayan sections and balance. Mayb it could be named "Swaminarayan as manifestation" - to show that he was believed to be a manifestation. Further, it is important to have the god POV just under the Sahajanand Swami section for the flow of the article. The Following part concentrates on after his death. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 12:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

"Swaminarayan as a Manifestation" is still a POV title and I strongly suggest having a more neutral title or merging it in Following as before. The contents of the section are odd, the first 2 sections have nothing with do with manifestation and they must be included in Leadership. The position of the section is also odd, the section should be under Death. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting Following and criticism. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 07:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would cite WP:YESPOV to include the same - people do accept him as a manifestation, hence it needs a mention - I dont think it implies tht hes a generally accepted manifestation if ur worried about tht. It is highly important to have this under Sahajanand Swami, as without such a section the life part is incomplete. I dont think it gels with following - it needs to be under Sahajanand Swami. Any particular reasons for opposing this? Secondly, any suggestions on the section name - Im open to something that you may find more neutral. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

YESPOV as I interpret here is: "Swaminarayan is a mainfestation ("Swaminarayan as a Manifestation")" is POV, but "Swaminarayan is a mainfestation according to the Swaminarayan sect" is an acceptable use of YESPOV and is neutral. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks gud, though m stil nt sure on the placement .. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 18:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) what position do you suggest? My rationale of taking in the current pos is that the belief section is not much related to biography of Sn, but is related to his followers's POV. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I c it better placed just under Sahajanand Swami. It refers to his discourses and sectorial writings of the time. In fact, The para in the Sahajanand Swami section giving the mantra, his teachings etc should b merged with this - as its more related to Swaminarayan than Sahajanand Swami. His life had four phases - Ghanshyam as a boy, Nilkanth Varni as a teenager, Sahajanand Swami as an ascetic of Ramanand Swami and Swaminarayan as founder of the Swaminarayan Sampraday (and secterian manisfest belief). Without the last one, its a bit unfinished. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Form of Krishna?

I think the whole dispute can be resolved by using my initial change of Narayan to Para Brahman. The article itself explains the differences in beliefs. Some belive Para Brahaman to be an avatar of Krishna or Narayan. Others belive him to be just a supreme being. All factions of the Swaminarayan Sect believe he is a Supreme Being.^The World 19:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC) This page may help to understand BAPS's stance -- [11] ^The World 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont c the issue - an extract from the philosophy section of the page mentioned by World: "Nothing transcends Parabrahman. He is the goal for meditational worship - of upasana, by all, including Aksharbrahman. He is one and unparalleled and is commonly known as Paramatma, Param-Purush, Parameshwar, Purna Purushottam and Narayan.". Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 22:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Para Brahman is unneeded jargon, IMO Supreme Being captures the essence of the term.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But Supreme Being just sounds too vague. That is why I prefer Para Brahman ^The World 02:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with Para Brahman is tht only a small section of ppl wld understand the meaning. Avatar of Narayana is more open - I dont c the issue as the BAPS site equates Para Brahman and Narayana as the same thing! Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 13:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Internal references to Swaminarayan sect works and other reference issues

IMO, Internal references to Swaminarayan sect works/sites/books would be accepted when expressing the views or beliefs of the community (with "According to the sect"), but should NOT used for contentious issues like claims of miracles, in sections were the sect may be suspected of hyperbole like his social work. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For Biography too, non-sectarian sources will be available and can be used. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Some books that have questionable reliability:

• Ref 4: "Let's Know Gods & Goddesses of India By M. Gupta" It reads more or less like devotee literature than scholarly work. There is evident WP:OR and improper grammar in the book, when the author says "Each letter from Hanuman's name have (has) a special connotation:" then enumerates qualities associated with the English letters (H-a-n-u-m-a-n) or Not Devanagari letters (Ha-nu-ma-n). Ancient scripture writers could not have done this.
• Glimpses of Indian Culture By Dinkar Joshi, Yogesh Patel can be acceptable, but IMO a better scholarly replacement can be found.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 13:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The only place where this needs replacement then is the Sahajanand Swami and Upliftment of Women section. The other internal refs are more to do with dates. TheGupta ref only covers scriptures learnt by Swaminarayan - so thts nt a cauz of too much worry. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The internal refs now only cover dates - and the point that Swaminarayan is considered the pioneer of female education within the faith. Are there any others needing replacement? Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 11:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"... and is equated with the Supreme Being"

This phrase in the introduction may not make sense to westerners. From a hindu perspective, I understand what is trying to be said. But this may confuse other readers. Is there anyway that it can be changed to say the same thing, but differently. ^The World 18:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Being is a well-accepted English term, cognate with Para Brahman. I do not see why it may not make sense to westerners. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right about Supreme Being, I didn't know it was so well known. I added an internal link to the article for those like me (who may not know what is trying to be said by "Supreme Being"). Now my only problem is "equated". I know it is still correct but I think the phrase should be rephrased. The wording doesn't seem to fit ^The World 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wording can be fixed in a latter copyedit stage. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PR??

I think we (ATG, World and I) have discussed all (as many as we could see) issues about the article, should we go for a WP:Peer review?? Comments plz. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The manifestation part is the only one m stil concerned about (refer above sectn). Else, I think v r ready. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 17:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there are a few pieces that need a little touching. Besides that we are in a better condition than even after recieving GA status. ^The World 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting the PR on behalf of all of us. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)