Talk:Swaminarayan/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Commencing review[edit]

  • I will undertake this review over coming days. This article is quite long and has a table of contents to match. My preliminary observation is that a significant proportion of this text does not belong in this article, but in Swaminarayan Faith, which currently contains only information about the succession (line of acharyas). I will try and make specific proposals as I go through in more detail.
  • There appears to have been some intensive discussion and review evidenced on the talk page, which has clearly ironed out quite a few problems. I congratualte the active editors on identifying, discussing and fixing numerous problems. I note there has been extensive editing since it was nominated for GA, but I see no obvious evidence that edit warring is involved. The article I think is, on balance, stable.
  • There are a range of permissions for images here of types I have not previously come across. I am accepting them in good faith.

Specfic comments:

Lead[edit]

*"It is believed that on the 1 June 1830, Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi and did so after making the announcement." I am not quite sure why this does not also say that he died. A lay reader will have no idea what "to take samādhi" means. I appreciate there is wikilink, but that is not enough in this context. The sentence should mention his death.

What would be a good way of menitiong it - died of his own will? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Just "died", I would have thought. The WP entry on samadhi does not state it has to be linked to bodily death. Part of the problem appears to be that the article implicitly equates the two (as well as using the word samadhi, with which some readers will not be familiar). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose: "It is believed that on the 1 June 1830, Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi (voluntarily stop breathing, thereby causing death). Thereafter he took samādhi and died." Samādhi is the cause of death, hence would need to be mentioned according to me. If the cause of death is not important it could be changed to "Swaminarayan died on 1 June 1830 in Gadhada." Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • I think it will read better as: "It is believed that on the 1 June 1830, Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi (voluntarily stop breathing, thereby causing death). Thereafter he died." I think the connection will be appropriately clear.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 11:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Separate to this point, having visited the reference Glimpses of Indian Culture, I would query its reliability and neutrality. I would like to hear from editors about why they think this is a neutral and reliable source.
Personally, I would not like to comment on this particular source as I may be considered to be biased (having been one of the major editors of the article). What I could say is - if found to be not good enough v could replace it. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • On the contrary, as an editor familiar with the source, you should be able to comment on whether and why it meets wikipedia policy on reliability (WP:RS). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

::: What I can say is that it is a neutral source, giving accurate information on Swaminarayan and the sect (this can be checked with Swaminarayan websites). The only issue I found is, the date of death mentioned is wrong - 28 June 1830. However, I would not look too much into that as Swaminarayan records are in the Vikram Samvat Calendar, and it is very easy to make a mistake in converting the date to the Gregorian one. Even the Williams book in 1980 mentioned Swaminarayan was born in 1780. This was later corrected to 1781 in a later edition of one of his books. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • If you are relying on other sources to have a reason to believe that Glimpses of Indian Culture is accurate, I'd use those other sources directly - but I think I get what you mean. I stil have my reservations about this book, but I'll leave it for now, as I cannot really substantiate my concerns. I think you might run into difficulty with it if you were to try and take this to Feature Article status though. But we're done in this point for GA. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does Swaminarayan's critizism need to be included in the intro? This did not occur during his lifetime but later. I thought the purpose of the intro was to give a short introduction into the life of Swaminarayan. In the Delhi Akshardham article, the critizism is included much later in the article. But I dont think it is essential enough to be in the intro World (talk • contributions) 19:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just 1 line. That's OK. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it is fine. For some reason, I thought it was longer World (talk • contributions) 18:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Childhood as Ghanshyam[edit]

  • "Swaminarayan was born outside of Gujarat in Chhapaiya, Uttar Pradesh, ..." Is there a source for this?
Williams p. 13. Given at end of para. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*"His father took the responsibility of teaching him about the Hindu scriptures." This has no reference. Deleted

  • "Swaminarayan was born on the occasion of Rama Navami. Chaitra Sud Nom of the Vikram Samvat calendar is celebrated as both Rama Navami and Swaminarayan Jayanti by his followers." These sentences will need explanation to many readers, who will not know what "Rama Navami", "Chaitra Sud Nom", or the "Vikram Samvat calendar" are.
Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Travels as Nilkanth Varni[edit]

  • "In Nepal, he met King Rana Bahadur Shah and cured him of his stomach illness." What is the reference for this, and are reliable sources confident that it can be claimed as fact in this way? In some such situations, a preferable approach would be to say "According to X, ..."
  • The material about the questions regarding the Vaishnava Vedanta categories needs to be reframed or re-ordered. I have made an attempt on the article page. If other editorts object, feel free to discuss here.
  • "He met Ramanand Swami ten months after his arrival in Gujarat." Reference?

Leadership as Sahajanand Swami[edit]

  • "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 senior sadhus of Ramanand Swami." Reference?

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 09:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, but the reference format could be improved - publisher, author retrieval date-type info (this is true for some other references as well, but I was holding out on raising this issue :-))

Swaminarayan mantra[edit]

  • This heading should be deleted, and the "see also" should simply sit beneath the "Leadership as Sahajanand Swami" heading.

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As early as 1804, Swaminarayan, who had performed innumerable miracles, was described as a manifestation of God, in the first work written by a disciple, Nishkulanand Swami." THis states as fact that Swaminarayan had performed innumerable miracles. "innumerable" is unencyclopdic, this needs a reference, and there needs to be some qualifier ("claimed", "was reported by followers" or similar).
I removed the word "innumerable and added 2 refs.  Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • The article still reads "Swaminarayan, who had performed miracles,..." which is not appropriate. It needs to be written to make clear that a source reported that he performed miracles. The source claiming there were miracles should also be cited at the end of that particular sentence.

Other religions[edit]

  • I think the headings "other religions" and "Relation with the Government" can be deleted.
So you mean tht the heading should just be "Relations"? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dint realise there are sub-headings, support. In fact I think its nt a big issue and am removing the sub headings. Anyone think opposite, kindly list your objection here. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is a matchlock?
A weapon. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but here, and elsewhere, when I have asked questions in the review, the point generally is that this needs clarification in the article (in this case a wikilink would be sufficient).
  • Why was the meeting embarrassing for Bishop Heber?
From the reference. Prob becoz he was the leader of the Catholics - prob considered to b more powerful and have more govt backing. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • If the source is being quoted, then quote marks need to be used. I guess my point is that, if I could not work out why he was embarrassed, neither may other readers. It needs to be explained or, if the source doesn't make it clear, then it should be omitted. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temples[edit]

*This entire section can be moved to Swaminarayan faith. In its place is needed a paragraph roughly as follows:

Swaminarayan ordered the construction of the following six mandirs and himself installed the images of various deities, such as Nara Narayana, Laxminarayan, Radha Krishna, Radha Ramana, Revti Baldevji, and many other images.[1] The first temple Swaminarayan constructed was in Ahmedabad in 1822, with the land for construction gifted by the British Imperial Government. (editor needs to work out which reference supports this) Following a request of devotees from Bhuj, Swaminarayan asked Vaishnavananand Swami to build a temple there, with planning commenced in 1822 and the temple built within a year (reference again) A temple in Vadtal followed in 1824 (source), in Dholera in 1826 (source), in Junagadh in 1828 (source) and in Gadhada, also in 1828. By the time of his death, Swaminarayan had also ordered construction of temples in Muli, Dholka and Jetalpur.[2]
I support this suggestion. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
In principle, I support the suggestion. However, there is a similar Section on the Swaminarayan Sampraday page. I feel this should be merged there or List of Swaminarayan temples, as Swaminarayan Faith is an article more to describe succession. Further, I personally would prefer a bit more info - such as priority of Krishna and separation of sexes. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I had not registered that there are effectively two articles about the sect established by Swaminarayan: one is Swaminarayan Sampraday, the other is Swaminarayan faith. My point is that everything that is about the sect, its beliefs, its practices, its temples... everything, in short, that is not biographical information about the historical individual called Swaminarayan, should not be in the Swaminarayan article. My view is that there should not be a separate article, Swaminarayan faith, just about succession. It is misleading to a lay reader like me, who assumed that an article called X faith was a general article about the religious/spiritual faith of people following X or beleiving in X. I suggest a redirect be created at "Swaminarayan faith" to "Swaminarayan Sampraday", and all material about the sect, including succession, be in that one article. If other editors for some reason want to argue the case for keeping those two separate articles, then I'll listen, but the material does not belong in this article. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are well over 100 articles in the Swaminarayan category (with its own wikiproject). The point is, its not just the above two. Apart from the original Sampraday there are several factions today - I think 7 major and several minor ones (BAPS is the only other one to have an article). Yes, I now do get your point on Swaminarayan Faith. I support the "belief" section being moved there. However, the "temples" and "ascetics" section would be better of on the Swaminarayan Sampraday article, where they can be merged into similar sections. The reason is that the particular information on the temples and ascetics belongs to the particular organisation and not the faith on the whole (its like having like the Church of Rome and cardinals/bishops belonging to Catholics in a Christian faith article). I remain neutral on the merge at the moment - I would like input from other major editors (Redtiger, World, Wikidas etc.) first. For now, may I suggest we move the "belief" to Swaminarayan Faith and "temples"/"ascetics" to Swaminarayan Sampraday, thereby clearing this hurdle for the GA, we could then put a merge tag on Swaminarayan Faith and sort it out. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is a good way forward, and thanks for fillign me in some more on the overall context. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, move current temples to Swaminarayan Faith or sampradaya, whichever is more appropriate (I am really not an expert on Swaminarayan sect). Replace it with the proposal above with minor additions of maximum 1 para. About Beliefs, it is be retained or curtailed as Beliefs reads more like philosophy preached by Swaminarayan (Fundamentals of the Swaminarayan philosophy) and the belief that Swaminarayan is not a mere mortal saint, but a godly figure. Both of which need to be in the article. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temple/Ascetics have been moved out. Along with a para on temples, Iv also maintained a para on ascetics as they were very important pillars of support to Swaminarayan. Hope this is not an issue. Hamiltonstone, thanks for your regular replies, could you please clear Redtigers doubt above on the beliefs section? Thanks, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

texts[edit]

  • This article is about Swaminarayan, and should confine itself to texts either written by him or reporting his words / about him. If I have understood the article correctly, this is what has been done here, so the section is OK (though it may need some copyediting - I'll try and look at that)
The editors had discussed this before. I will request AroundTheGlobe check " Muktanand Kavya, Nishkulanand Kavya and Bhakta Chintamani" for the criteria set by the GA reviewer (above) and give brief description of the texts. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
" Muktanand Kavya, Nishkulanand Kavya and Bhakta Chintamani" are from his time, however only the "Bhakta Chintamani" and Satsangi Jeevan are on him (the other 2 are poem compositions on him and other deities. There is also the Brahmanand Kavya, which incidently has been preserved in the British Museum (copy, not original)) The Shikshapatri was written by him, and Vachanamrut is his teachings noted by his "top aides" (if I can put it tht way!). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* "In 1826, Swaminarayan wrote the Shikshapatri, while the original manuscript in ______ " (language) is not available" Fill in the blanks. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]

"In 1826, Swaminarayan wrote the Shikshapatri. While the original manuscript is not available, it was translated into Sanskrit by his follower under the direction of Swaminarayan" original must be in a different language. ???? --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beliefs[edit]

*This section should be moved to Swaminarayan Faith.

  • There may be some information in the subsection "Manifestation of Narayana" that could be appropriately retained, if it relates to what was reported by others of Swaminarayan's life, teaching and death. I refer particularly to the sentence "Swaminarayan is said to have intimated that he was a manifestation of God Supreme in a meeting with the Reginald Heber, the Lord Bishop of Calcutta, in 1825.[32]" - this will need to be placed elsewhere in the biographical text of the article
The Swaminarayan Faith article was started to describe the disputes in succession. I dont know how this would fit there. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comments under "Temples", above. If you want an article solely about the disputes in succession, then it should be called something like "the Swaminarayan succession". As I have indicated in earlier comments, however, I do not believe such a separate article should exist. Either way, the material does not belong in the Swaminarayan bio article. cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Query. See Temples. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain of the view that the section 'Beliefs' should be moved out of this article, as it is not about the person himself, but about Swaminarayan Hinduism. The one sentence I believe should be retained I have now incorporated into the section on relations with the British government (not perfect, but the best solution at present).
  • I do get your point at the beginning of the section. However, Manifestation of Narayan and Fundamentals of the Swaminarayan Philosophy seem to be better on this article. The whole subsection on manifestation is on the manifestation of Narayan as Swaminarayan, hence important on this particular article. The fundamentals section Im nt too sure of - its something that he taught, however it is central to the faith as well. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about Curtailing to reflect only the important teachings of Swaminarayan and the belief he is a manifestation of God. I think, ATG can enlighten us which are the most the important teachings (I am no expert). --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except for the Bhagwat Geeta (it was actually the Shreemad Bhagwad that he held in high regard!), all the points are fundamental to the Swaminarayan philosophy (vishistadvaita, Dharma, Bhakti, Gnana, Vairaga, Mukti, Maya, Atman and Parataman). They are of the same importance - there is no way to decipher which is higher than the other. The Shreemad Bhagwad could be included as the scripture held in highest regard - but is not essential to the fundamental philosophy. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swaminarayan ascetics[edit]

Can be moved OR suggestion 2: correct me ATG (AroundTheGlobe) "Swaminarayan ascetics" denotes the followers of Swaminarayan. If NOT, move. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Ascetics are saints or sadhus. The section is on ascetics initiated by Swaminarayan and their role in helping him set up the Sampraday (organisation) he founded. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remain of the view that this section still does not belong in this article, but in the article on the sect - whiever one that is (see comments under "temples" above). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Societal Reforms[edit]

*"He undertook several social service projects and opened alms houses for the poor. Swaminarayan organized food and water relief to people during during times of drought, which won him many disciples." Reference(s) needed.  Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • OK, but this is another example where the reference formatting needs to be improved - do you know how to use the cite add-on tool? Good for reminding you to include info like publisher, and to generate a retrieval date, and a standard format for displaying the reference. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To counter the practice of sati (suicide of the widow), Swaminarayan gave a number of discourses highlighting that human life was given by God and could be taken only by him and that sati had no Vedic sanction. He went to the extent to call sati nothing but suicide. Swaminarayan offered help with dowry expenses to help parents desist from female infanticide and called called infanticide a big sin." References needed.
Coverd by "the clash within p322,323 and Williams 165, 167.  Done Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Ref should be at the end of the para - better than relying on a reference in another para. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During his period Swaminarayan was noted for improving the moral values of the youth." This (and some other sentences in these sections) do not sound as though they are of a neutral point of view - whether or not they are referenced.

Following and criticism[edit]

  • What is "a saint order"???
Ascetics (refer ascetics section in Swaminarayan Sampraday for a better idea). Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragaph needs a copyedit and to remove redundant phrases / information.
  • "Swaminarayan, while in compliance with Ramanuja, was critical of Shankaracharya concept of advaita and maintained that the supreme person is not formless." This sentence is too technical for many readers, and requires explanations in everyday language.

 Done

Succession[edit]

*Most of this information does not need to be in an article that is a bio of Swaminarayan. Most of it is, I think, already where it belongs - in Swaminarayan Faith. Just a couple of sentences shoudl be retained in this article, mentioning his establishment of a line of acharyas.

  • Propose:

Main article: Swaminarayan faith

Prior to his death, Swaminarayan decided to establish a line of acharyas, preceptors, as his spiritual successors.[3] Swaminarayan established two gadis (seats of leadership). One seat was established in Ahmedabad (Nar Narayan Dev Gadi) and the other one in Vadtal (Laxmi Narayan Dev Gadi) on Tuesday, November 21, 1825 (Kartik Sud 11, Ekadashi). He appointed an acharya from immediate family to each of these two gadis to pass on his message to others and to preserve his fellowship, Swaminarayan Sampraday by the means of a legal document called the Desh Vibhag Lekh. [4] After his death, several divisions occurred with different understandings of the succession of leadership. [5] Some associated scandals and "turf wars" for the original seat of Swaminarayan in Vadtal have attracted attention of national media.[6] The sect has produced a number of schismatic groups, such as BAPS and Swaminarayan Gadi.[7] Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 13:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the proposal. I think: "These acharyas came from his immediate family; he formally adopted a son from each of his two brothers, Rampratap and Ichcharam, and appointed them to the office of acharya. Ayodhyaprasad, son of his elder brother Rampratap, was appointed acharya of Ahmedabad Gadi, and Raghuvira, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, was appointed acharya of the Vadtal Gadi. Swaminarayan decreed that the office should be hereditary so that acharyas would maintain a direct line of blood descent from his family." should be included too. I am editing the main article, if anyone has any issues with the draft. Revert. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what Hamiltonstone meant by this is that only the set up by Swaminarayan should be mentioned, that too in a condensed form. Yes, there may be an issue of stability, hence atleast a fleeting reference to others should be present according to me (to avoid ip vandalism tht the article has faced in the past). In detail, this should b incl. on the Swaminarayan Faith article. World (or anyone else who is opposed) could you please list any opposition here (nt singling u out - as u reverted Redtigers edit ur input is req). Chhers -- Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World in his revert says "this is an important part to the article, many mentions not found in other articles. It talks about the present. WIth its previous form BAPS was touched little (it is a large factio)". I would say BAPS needs to touched in Swaminarayan Faith, not here. Swaminarayan is not the founder of BAPS. We need to talk about the present in Swaminarayan Faith, not here. I leave the decision to revert or not to other editors. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People of the BAPS (and not only BAPS, smaller sub-sects as well) faith believe that Swaminarayan directly handed over his leadership to Gunatitanand Swami. Now this did occur during Swaminarayan's lifetime (towards the end). 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. I am fine with little mention of BAPS and more mention of the Sampraday (I have to agree, I forgot again that this is an article about Swaminarayan's lifetme, his bio). Also Sorry about not writing on this page. I will be sure to do so from now on. World (talk • contributions) 19:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your input. Some people (like Swaminarayan Gadi) say Goplanand Swami was the spiritual successor. This debate belongs to Swaminarayan Faith - not Swaminarayan. The Desh Vibhag Lekh (Swaminarayan's will - accepted in court) gives the Acharyas ALL (incl. spiritual) authority and overall headship. BAPS as Redtiger pointed out, was formed several decades after Swaminarayan died. Gunatitanand Swami/Gopalanand Swami or any other Sampraday paramhansa DID NOT claim headship during their lifetime - they accepted the acharyas as heads. Therefore on this page, it needs no more than a small ref. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 21:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is, is that members of BAPS do not accept the Desh Vibhag Lekh as Swaminarayan's final will because they believe the Acharya's had power to change the will so that the will would give them spiritual power (not only political power). It is accepted by the Bombay High Court, but this is a diffence in belief which has occured from Swaminarayan's time to now. I understand that this is an article about Swaminarayan, but there is a diference of belief in what happened towards the end of Swaminarayan's life. These paramhansas may have claimed spiritual headship of the sampradays, or they may have feared the acharyas and their power. I have read about how the belief was underground and Shastiji Maharaj was the only sadhu at the time who started preaching it, leading to his excommuication. There are stories about how many of thesants knew the truth but kept the idea to themselves because of fear. I am not trying to claim anything or prove anything, but it is certain that there is a key difference in faith over succession which needs to be pointed out. World (talk • contributions) 20:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gunatitanand Swami, one of the main sadhus of Swaminarayan states “He who insults the temples, Acharyas, sadhus and satsangies will find his roots being destroyed and will inevitably fall from the satsang.” – Swami ni Vato Prakran 5, Vat 104. A book written by him, stating the opposite. Anyways - all this belong to a faith discussion forum, not here. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added on sentence explaining this difference in belief to the succession section yesterday, explaining the key difference in belief of the two factions on what happened towards the end of Swaminarayan's life World (talk • contributions) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for now. I have some concerns about style and POV in the later sections, but they may be addressed when the above points are covered. I will keep an eye on how things are going. Leave a message at my talk page too, if you wish. Thank you for this interesting article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Progress[edit]

  • Well, I can see my suggestions have provoked a bit of a discussion. I want to reiterate that this is an article about a historical person, and is not an article about a religious faith, sect, spiritual practices, philosophy, social movement, temples etc. All those things, unless they pertain directly to the historical figure, belong in other articles, and i see much has been done to achieve this. What I thought I would do at this point is edit the article directly, to demonstrate how i think the changes, which some editors appear to support and others may not, would appear. Editors may wish to discuss and revert from there. I am doing this in part because some of the discussion suggests I may not have been understood, and in part because I am changing my position a little with regard to the material in the section called "Succession", to try and accommodate some editors' points. Give me a few hours, then see what you think.

Once these structural issues are settled, there will also be some style, referencing and copyediting details to sort out before this will be a GA, and we will work on those. If editors want to get an idea of what we are aiming for here, have a look at Bahá'u'lláh, an article which I think is much closer in format and style to our goal (though only rated B class at present, and has its own issues). hamiltonstone (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can say that again! The problem with several articles on WP Swaminarayan has been several factions having their own views, leading to big periods of vandalism and edit wars. A consensus has always been difficult to build as its involved several parties. Its taken us several years to get the article to this point, and this is only the second GA nominee from WP Swaminarayan! Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some explanations along the way[edit]

  • I have omitted the section "Manifestation of Narayana" because it is not about the historical person. This is highlighted by the very first sentence of this section, which states "Followers of Swaminarayan believe ..." This is why this section belongs in one of the articles about the faith, rather than the person. The one historical sentence that relates to S himself has been retained elsewhere in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have omitted the section "Beliefs" for much the same reason, and again have saved one sentence for use elsewhere. I am not arguing that the article should say nothing about S having a religious following. There are two ways in which this should be achieved. The first is through evidence of the development of the cult during his lifetime, and this is already very clear from the biographical sections. The second is through the section at the end of the article "following and criticism". Further material on this is not needed in this article - it is completely appropriate in other articles on the faith, and editors should obviously take material that was here and put it into those articles if they wish. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have omitted the section "Fundamentals of the Swaminarayan philosophy" for a major reason and a minor one. The major reason is that this is not about S's own philosophy, as stated by S to reliable sources. It is about the principles underpinning a contemporary religion or sect. Again, this belongs in another article. If editors can locate reliable sources that report S's own philosophy, as expounded by him when he was a living sect leader, then they can be reported, and there could be a section like this one. But it has to come of reliable sources about his life. The minor reason is that one of sources relied upon for many points in this section (Vishistadvaita, The philosophy of the Swaminarayan Sect) does not seem to clearly support the text to which it is provided as an in-line citation. Even if it did, though, i remain of the view that this material is in the wrong article. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
* I am not sure if "Manifestation of Narayana" removal is the best thing to do, IMO the removal clearly violates "comprehensiveness". There are few Hindu leaders who are worshipped as an inacrnation of God. This article has had an intense debate on the inclusion of Category: Regional Hindu gods. There are "historical" Hindu saints who have had popular "mythological legends" attached to their life. The mythology of Swaminarayan is as important as his historical life. At least a mention of the basic myth (if not the whole section) somewhere is necessary.
* The article without "philosophy" is acceptable for GA status, but IMO a section on Swaminarayan's teachings is neccessary for FA comprehensiveness. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other matters[edit]

  • I had an earlier interchange with Around the Globe about the way in which S's death would be dealt with in the lead. I want to go back to that issue. It now reads "Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi (voluntarily stop breathing, thereby causing death). Thereafter he died." However, the WP article on samadhi does not say that this condition involves voluntarily stopping breathing, thereby causing death. And indeed later in the article on S, there is a passage which states "When chanting this mantra some devotees went into samadhi and claimed that they could see their personal gods, even though they had no knowledge of Astanga Yoga". This underlines the fact that samadhi is not intrinsicly connected to death. I believe the lead will need to change (again) to break this nexus. The most that should be said (and only if reliable sources substantiate it) is that Swaminarayan announced that he intended to enter Nirvikalpa Samadhi and through it attain Nirvana. Thereafter he died. (or something along those lines, I'm no expert).
There are different uses of the same term. Samadhi may be mediation or connected to death: see Samadhi#Samadhi as leaving the body and Mahasamadhi. Actually, I have hardly ever heard about use of the term "Maha-samadhi", generally samadhi is used "the intentional departure from the physical body at death." --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentences (from the succession material) need reliable source references to support them: "He appointed an acharya to each of these two gadis to pass on his message to others and to preserve his fellowship, Swaminarayan Sampraday. These acharyas came from his immediate family; he formally adopted a son from each of his two brothers, Rampratap and Ichcharam, and appointed them to the office of acharya. Ayodhyaprasad, son of his elder brother Rampratap, was appointed acharya of Ahmedabad Gadi, and Raghuvira, son of his younger brother Ichcharam, was appointed acharya of the Vadtal Gadi."
  • What is the difference between "Leadership as Sahajanand Swami" and "Leading the Sampraday"? Both are the same because Swaminarayan led the samparaday as Sahajanand Swami. (coorect me, if wrong) I think, the latter section be renamed to "Reforms" as before OR any other suitable name. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I noticed that myself as well today World (talk • contributions) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Used more common term, Radha Krishna World (talk • contributions) 20:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Madan Mohan is a lot diff from Radha Krishna. The third figure is Swaminarayan in the form of Hari Krishna. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 22:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Suggestion[edit]

The images throughout the article should include images of only temples and idols during the timeperiod of Swaminarayan to prevent unnessessary disputes. The images may also include illustrations or paintings of Swaminarayan or his life to explain his life. This is why I removed the pictures of the idols at Gatwick and added the NarNaryan picture instead (moved it down) and added an illustration of the paramhansas in its place. World (talk • contributions) 19:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note The reason I had exchanged the Crawley image for the Dholera one was to maitain images of tht time period. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 22:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress[edit]

*This article has improved a lot. Current issues:

  • "It is believed that on the 1 June 1830, Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi" In the process of debating this term and creating a footnote to explain it, it has lost (if it had) an in-line citation for the actual fact contained therein. Can someone fix this?
"Thereafter he died.[11]" Reference present. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference to which you refer indicates he died on 28 June 1830, does not mention samadhi by name (though the implication may be present), and says nothing about him making an announcement to his followers of a decision to take samadhi, as the previous sentence outlines. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned earlier, all of the Swaminarayan records are kept in the Vikram Samvat Indian calendar. It is diff to convert these dates to CE and mistakes are often made. Hence, that issue, I feel can be handled with loose hands keeping in mind the conversion issue. Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough. That just leaves this: "Swaminarayan gathered his followers and announced his decision to take samādhi". A source, anyone?
  • I have added pages 29 and 93 of the Williams book 2001. It does not mention samadhi. I take it is fine to remove a ref to samadhi, since it is clearly stated that just by meeting SN his followers were put into a state of samadhi (so he should be there all the time??? right...) -- anyway his permanent 'spiritual' residence as a destination on the page 93 is sufficient to make it acceptable to satsangis who would try to avoid the issue of his death being 'normal'. So samadhi is gone death is certified:-)Wikidas© 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations of webpages generally need to be improved. I'll try and do a couple, and see if editors will do the rest once they've seen what's needed.
  • "He conducted the festivities of Vasant Panchami, Holi, and Janmashtami with raas" - raas needs an explanation/definition here.
Reworded. --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tradition maintains that Swaminarayan initiated 500 ascetics as paramhansas in a single night. Paramahansa is a title of honor sometimes applied to Hindu spiritual teachers who are regarded as having attained enlightenment. Paramhansas were the highest order of sannyasi in the sect." The reference at the end of the paragraph does not appear to be relevant to these sentences. They therefore need their own reliable source.
  • There is a key issue which I will not pursue further at this point, but which would prevent this article from reaching FA status - a significant number of the references are not reliable enough sources. For example, relying on a website produced by the sect to substantiate as fact claims such as "he met King Rana Bahadur Shah and cured him of his stomach illness" just will not work. I urge editors to increase the reliance of the article on high quality sources, particularly scholarship that has been conducted outside the sect itself. The reason I am willing to not make this a sticking point at GA is that I feel that a substantial proportion of the material is based on the apparently credible Williams books (and some other acceptable sources), however overall it won't be good enough for FA.hamiltonstone (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest just taking out such material like about King Rana Bahadur Shah. There is plenty of material in the article anyway. If nobody will volunteer, I will go over the article to remove such claims. Wikidas© 11:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That them may be necessary only for future FA status. For GA it seems okay. Are there any other issues or is it all GA-cool? Wikidas© 17:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Hopefully) last things[edit]

* The whole business about his death has led to further changes - which I think are OK - but this has introduced a link in the lead to Akshardham. Can someone disambiguate this please - which of the three possible entries is it meant to link to? After it has been disambiguated, I will probably make a suggestion or a copyedit, but i need to know what the intention here is first.

Removed Akshardham in lead as talks more about Swaminarayn taking followers to Akshardham, after death. Added cremation as more important - answers: "What happened to the body?" - buried, cremated??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the lead, something I missed earlier: what does "performing yagnas on a large scale" mean? This is not a word that most readers will know, nor is it wikilinked (note a wikilink is not enough - this needs to be explained in plainer english in the lead). Again, if an editor will make an attempt to clarify this, I can also assist with copyediting.
Clarified. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* I read some references in "Reforms for the poor and women" (30-35) and feel certain facts are hidden in this article.

    • [1] says: "He was not in favour of remarriage of widows. He wanted them to live always under the control of male members of their family and prohibited them from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest realtions. He asked his male disciples never to listen to religious discourses delivered by women." Williams says: "Members are proud of the record of the Swaminarayan religion in the cause of the advancement of women, but somewhat defensive about some of the practices which seem to restrict the freedom of women and make full equality of the leadership impossible". Criticism just says "While many would assert that Swaminarayan Hinduism serves a patriarchal agenda, which attempts to keep women in certain roles, Swaminarayan himself despite considerable criticism from his own contemporary society, who "loathed the uplift of lower caste women," insisted on alternative views to the education as being the inherent right of all people.[87]"

Shouldn't both facets of Swaminarayan in terms of women be discussed here?

    • "Many consider Swaminarayan a pioneer of education of females in India." exactly who outside the sect? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
        • Reworded "Many". Tht is part of the criticism sectn - Im adding the widow remarriage thing there as well. Williams p. 167 - says he was in favour of widow remarriage for those who could not follow the path of chastity. Incorporated in Criticism Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 08:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are references to him as "pioneer" outside the sect, it is better to remove it. Though Swaminarayan's views on sati are strongly reformist, his views on female education seem restricted He "prohibited them (women) from receiving instruction in any science from any man excepting their nearest relations." that means the current system of female education by non-relative teachers - may not have Swaminarayan's approval. He is also not involved in actively teaching the women himself. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the widows misrepresntation. But, still IMO, If there are references to him as "pioneer" outside the sect, it is better to remove it. Unlike others who are described as pioneers in female education, Swaminarayan neither opened schools nor actively taught the women himself. The sect may over-glorify him. If he is a pioneer, then there must benon-sect RS, that support this fact. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked some of the material on gender, as I was broadly supportive of Redtiger's concern. Let me know if anyone has issues, otherwise I am happy with that particular section for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reworked section balnces all POVs. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out any more jargon, you are uncomfortable with. Will try to simplify the jargon. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence in the Death and succession section mentions that followers believe Swaminarayan was transported to Akshardham. This sounds strange because followers believe him to be God. So, I don't get how he could be transported rather than just leaving for his abode. See if this change (see my contributions or page history) is good World (talk • contributions) 01:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this article has now been passed. Key to future improvement is improving the quality of references, and strengthening the reliance on sources that come from outside the sect. Regards. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Raymond Brady Williams (2004). Williams on South Asian religions and immigration. Retrieved May 7, 2009. Page 81
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Williams29 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Williams 2001, pp. 34
  4. ^ Williams 2001, pp. 35, 36
  5. ^ "Swaminarayan monks caught in sex video - India - The Times of India". indiatimes.com. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  6. ^ "Sex, swamis and a CD: Scandal sparks off row". www.expressindia.com. Retrieved 2009-05-23.
  7. ^ "Niche Faiths". Indian Express. 2007-05-26. Retrieved 2009-05-06.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swaminarayan/GA1&oldid=1137213733"