Talk:Morari Bapu: Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Gujarat Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Gujarat (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Somebody added "Moraridas Hariyani" as Morari Bapu's "real" name, but did not provide a source for that name. All material added to Wikipedia must be backed up by a reliable source. Otherwise, any user is free to remove that information, which is exactly what I did. However, User:Vishmaster has now twice reverted my removals. Does anybody have a reliable source for Moraridas Hariyani being Morari Bapu's real name? If so, then please add it to the article. A piece of information as important as his real name must be well-sourced. --Hnsampat (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added back his real name Moraridas Prabhudas Hariyani as is evident from the website referred and cited. Also removed the citation needed tag for birth-date, which is clearly mentioned as September 25, 1946 in the referred site, with his childhood name as Moraridas, Father's name as Prabhudas Hariyani and mother's name as Savitriben Hariyani. Thus making his complete name as Moraridas Prabhudas Hariyani. Further, the website also mentions that he has been started as lovingly called Bapu, which is generally called honorific title for any respected or fatherly persons usually called in Gujarat and other states like Rajasthan, etc. For example Gandhiji was also called Bapu. Simliarly, in British India : heads of Princely states or big Jamindars or Village Head were also called Bapu as a mark of respect in Gujarat and even today continued to be called so in rural Gujarat.--Hardyraj (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Morari Bapu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131221140038/http://moraribapu.org/moraribapu_biography.html to http://www.moraribapu.org/moraribapu_biography.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120718090312/http://profiles.incredible-people.com/sant-morari-bapu/ to http://profiles.incredible-people.com/sant-morari-bapu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys would like to discuss why you think the (reliable and sourced) content you keep deleting from this page should be removed, then please feel free to do so. Repeated vandalism is not a useful edit or discussion, however. PotentPotables (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: The rationale for not incorporating the sarcastic dig at Swaminarayan has been well-established on this thread with consensus. If it wasn't appropriate for one article, it's not appropriate for any article on Wikipedia. Moksha88 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contexts are different. It was not criticism but it deserves mention on BLP. Pinging @Nizil Shah: for 3O. Useless to argue with person here who don’t have understanding of policy and context. Next time when you revert sourced content then seek consensus on relevant talk page first. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moksha88:, both article are different and has different context. It should be kept IMO. @Harshil169:, useless to argue... are poor choice of words. Should be in more polite words. Regards, Nizil (talk) 04:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s really useless to argue when user says "If it wasn't appropriate for one article, it's not appropriate for any article on Wikipedia." Atleast, they should know about context and meaning before giving their so called expert opinion. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: I am curious as to what is the difference of posting the sarcastic dig here versus on the prior article that was attempted to post on? I don't think it is required here. Also, there have been many instances where you have been violating WP:CIVIL with your tone and language towards other editors. This should be addressed to admins for grounds of blocking in my opinion. Apollo1203 (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go, go and report me to administrators. Just do that ASAP, I’ve collected all proofs. I don’t care about your attack. It’s clearly mentioned in the thread that it was satire, not criticism and thus, it shouldn’t be included on criticism of Swaminarayan. This deserves mentions in BLP because person spoke this and invited controversy. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169:, never loose your temper. You could have avoided Go, go... ...attack. We should only stick to the point and ignore anything else said by anybody. That the best way to handle emotional outburst. @Apollo1203: Please stick to the discussion here and avoid opinion on behaviour of others. I was invited here for opinion on topic but I see people moving away from topic and going after each others' behaviour. Please engage in topic discussion, not in personal. -Nizil (talk) 13:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: I apologise if I sound hard but this user issued warning on my talk page that I attacked user personally and used name calling without any difference. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if content like this is not suitable for one article it's not appropriate for another. To paraphrase User Sarah Welch from the Swaminarayan Sampraday article, if it is unencyclopedic and not notable, it shouldn't be here. See WP:WWIN. This content should be removed. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand what language the sources are in. I'm removing this content. I believe there is consensus to do so. Actionjackson09 (talk) 02:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's clear consensus to put content here. Again, pinging @Nizil Shah and Ms Sarah Welch: to comment on content.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure there's consensus to post this content here. I'm reading through this thread and I feel that @Harshil169: and @Nizil Shah: have lost sight of the main point of the discussion and have gotten diverted by semantics. While I agree with your rational that the criticism is well referenced, I do not believe it meets the criteria for notability as looking for other sources was a difficult task. This seems like it has not garnered attention for a sufficient amount of time. While saying this I would also like to state that as this is an English language Wikipedia page, we should try to ensure that sources are either in the English language or translated in to the English language. Finally I would like to kindly suggest that we remain civil in passionately advocating for our positions. From what I can see above and a thorough reading of the sources that I could understand as well as a reading of the policies mentioned, I do not believe that there is any merit to this content on this page and am removing it.ThaNDNman224 (talk) 15:42, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which policies says references in English are not available?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RSUE before commenting that non-English sources are not allowed?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Came here after seeing page is locked. I see no point in objecting this content article. Few points:

1. Harshil and Nizil refuted Moksha's point.
2. According to context, situation changes and notability changes.
3. There's no policy that one disqualified content shouldn't be allowed in another. If there's then cite.
4. Non-English sources are allowed per WP:NONENGLISH.
5. I always wonder why criticism of Sahjananda doesn't exist on internet. But I can see this filthy behaviour.-Krishna's flute (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as per WP:BRD, once objection has been raised then there's need to discuss only. No revert. I think that this can be possible that these people created some group to attack and get away good contributions. I'll just say that please read WP: CANVAS. If discussion is going like this and users are coming here without pinging then it's most probably case of canvassing and if administrator captures these and these all accounts will be blocked for making Wikipedia as battleground. First make yourself aware of Wikipedia's policies. Also, note few things in mind:

• If your content is good then it'll be posted here without canvassing.
• But if it's bad them it will not and you all will be blocked for canvassing discussion by inviting those who have favorable opinion.
• Arbitration and DS are applied on this topic and this is BLP. If this behaviour continues then administrator can put topic ban you for canvassing discussion and not discussing on policy.
• Also, keep in mind that WP:CONSENSUS changes and you MUST engage yourself in consensus building rather than deriving judgement out of it. Wikipedia's consensus are changing per year and thus, we all have to follow them.

-Krishna's flute (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate @ThaNDNman224: for attempting to refocus the conversation and agree I could have been more precise with my initial reasoning. I felt the argument was well established by Ms Sarah Welch, "Doesn't matter whether it is dig/praise/reality, it is unencyclopedic and not notable," and @Nizil Shah: called consensus on this statement. While I agree the context is different (criticism against Swaminarayan sect vs Morari Bapu), I think it's irrelevant to the larger discussion. I agree that there's no policy that prohibits non-English sources, but to assess notability, I lack the language proficiency to review the referenced non-English sources for their diversity and depth of coverage. A simple search of Google News fails to reveal any coverage in the two-month interval since this incident occurred. The burden to provide this information therefore rests on those who wish to cite it. @Harshil169: Rather than calling me a religious zealot (which I find most offensive) and reverting any changes made, please establish the notability of this content. @Krishna's flute: Please also avoid uncivil language, particularly "But I can see this filthy behaviour," as well as accusations of canvassing. You are most welcome to present any evidence that suggests canvassing at the appropriate channel, but I implore all of us to refocus on the content. Moksha88 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’re coverages in English sources:[1][2][3][4] Can you please cite how notability fails? Things should be covered in multiple reliable and independent sources and all are present here. Apart from these, there’re 100 sources in Gujarati and Hindi which cover this event. Cite policy please!— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Thank you for sharing, I will review these sources carefully. If they are available in English, is there a reason why you preferred not to cite them? As for policies, I was referencing WP:EVENT (inclusion criteria) and also wondered whether this event was WP:SENSATIONAL. Moksha88 (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please understand that I used sources which covered indepth of it. Like, I quoted BBC article which is most reliable than all of these. Also, this comment resulted into multiple protests both online and offline. You can find change.org’s petitions regarding it. So this is not sensational. Please state where notability lacks and if possible then stop all these users to do reverting. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Cite policies properly. Like, you cited EVENT which is for making article related to event. But this is not case here. And this is not sensational either. Nizil had opened discussion of this comment on another article but he agrees to put it here. So, what problem you have?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Indian Express, VTV Gujarati, Times of India are not tabloid or yellow journalism channels. They’re RS per WT:India. So your point on SENSATIONALISM makes wrong. Now, I’m sure you’re going to cite some other policy against it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 09:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to the ping and msg on my talk page: A bit of TLDR above. This is a BLP article, guidelines such as notability, BLPBALANCE, write "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone", etc apply. Nizil is right above. The context is different, but not every "sarcastic dig" etc reported by a newspaper needs to be repeated here. We need to be cautious about "what we summarize, and how". Instead of this, please consider something along the lines "Morari Bapu has criticized Sahajanand – the founder of [...], a criticism shared and cited by scholars such as [...]", or "Morari Bapu has criticized Sahajanand – the founder of [...] by questioning his revered status in Swaminarayan tradition and alleging he is believed to be [...] by its members. His views have been challenged by members of that tradition, and Bapu later apologized to them for his statements", or whatever is supported by the RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken some time to reflect on all the relevant policies and read through the articles as best as possible. I am not opposed to including the remarks on Nilkanth Varni per WP:BLPPUBLIC and want to avoid WP:UNDUE. My drafted version is available in my sandbox here (1). Per WP:NOCON, it would be appropriate for us to make changes on this version before proceeding with editing the live page as there I sense there is enough interest among us to improve the original version. Moksha88 (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed version is not neutral and is unclear. I will reword it. -Nizil (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch and Moksha88:, I have proposed version - 2. Version-1 favoured Swaminarayan side and what "derogatory remarks" was unclear for a reader. Word "religious intolerance" was not required. The version-2 is neutral without taking any side and clear what was the issue was all about. Please have a look in version 2.-Nizil (talk) 06:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moksha88 and Nizil for the initiative. Version 2 is more neutral. I support its inclusion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Sarah Welch, Nizil, your input is appreciated. I made a third revision for the reasons outlined below,

1. Nilkanth is not a title given by Swaminarayan’s followers to Swaminarayan; it’s the name he adopted upon renouncing the world and lived as a wandering ascetic practicing austerities and yoga from the age of 11 to 19 when he was ordained as a Swami (See Raymond Williams's An Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism, page 15). The sarcasm or derision that was used was that although he was an ascetic with the name Neelkanth, he was “eating ladus” (indulging in rich foods) and thus, actually a hypocrite. The reality, based on multiple sources, is that he engaged in intense austerities for that period of his life which left him emaciated. Thus, using sarcasm to falsely attack or deride his integrity as an ascetic (that he was indulgent, instead of performing austerities) is pretty much the definition of “derogatory remark” - based on its definition. Moreover, to try to explain all of the above in the article would be giving the issue undue weight, so the phrase “derogatory remarks to Swaminarayan” therefore summarizes these details without giving undue weight, and is actually more in line with NPOV.
2. He didn’t apologize to the followers, he apologized for his statements.:— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moksha88 (talk • contribs)

Thank you all for providing more context on this discussion. I agree with Moksha88, the version they have added to their sandbox seems to be compliant and in good form. ThaNDNman224 (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThaNDNman224 and Moksha88:@Ms Sarah Welch:, I think following is agreed by all of us: His views have been challenged by members of the tradition, and Bapu later apologised for his statements.. Now we only need deliberation on how to include statement of Bapu. So I have proposed new Version 2b. We should not judge whether Bapu's statement was "derogatory" or not. Neutrally, we write only about what he said and we should leave it for readers to judge themselves. When we write "derogatory", we are clearly judging and favouring one side (so not neutral) but when we write only what happened we are not taking any sides (neutral). Taking your comment in consideration, I have reworded the sentence for better clarification of Nilkanth. If we remove sentence on Nilkanth and only write “derogatory remarks to Swaminarayan”, the reader would not know what the remark was and would not be able to judge it. So we should include the remark that he equated two Nilkanth names. -Nizil (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticized" or "questioned" is more neutral than using Wikipedia voice to assert Bapu's remarks were "derogatory" or were a "sarcastic dig" or etc. This being a BLP article, we must be careful. I can't read most of the cited sources, because except for two, they are WP:NONENG sources. In the English sources, I do not see support for "title Nilkanth Varni, a former name of Sahajanand Swami". The UNI source supports he "questioned the authenticity of Nilkanthvarni" because he believed there was "only one Nilkanth, namely Shiva, the husband of Parvati". Perhaps, Nizil, we should paraphrase such a source closely plus attribute the source (According to United News of India, ...) per WP:Plag guidelines. That may help avoid endless edit wars, while being neutral and fair to all sides. FWIW, all this is odd because the suffix "varni" is important. Further, most Hindu texts state that Shiva is in every person, every being, and everything; and Raymond Williams in his Introduction to Swaminarayan Hinduism (Cambridge Univ Press, page 28) states Swaminarayan tradition reveres all five: Vishnu, Shiva, Ganapati, Parvati and Surya (see Panchayatana puja). But all that is irrelevant and undue to the dispute here, plus inappropriate WP:Synthesis. We should keep the language neutral and close to what is supported in the cited sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nizil, I am more confused by version 2b

1. Nilkanth Varni can't both be a title and a name. It’s a name based on the source I cited, and we ought to acknowledge the truth despite what has been published by the papers (WP:INACCURATE). Echoing Ms Sarah Welch, is there a reason why we’re using non-English sources (WP:NOENG)

It is not about what the truth is. It is only about what Bapu said (true/false or whatever). We report only what he said. We are using other language source because they provide more details on the issue.-Nizil (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. Secondly, Morari Bapu didn’t criticize the name by equating it with Shivji for the reasons I outlined above. I’ve drafted two more versions to succinctly describe what happened.

Version 3b or 3c do not describe what the remark was. I have reworded the Version 2b.-Nizil (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m also pinging Apollo1203, Actionjackson09 for their input as well and adding my signature next to my comments from yesterday which I inadvertently forgot to sign. Moksha88 (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moksha88: I would reword it to clarify title/name issue. Version 3b and 3c is nothing new and just replaces "derogatory" with similar word. Those words are not neutral at all. So they are not helpful according to my former comment on version 3a. We should not judge while your comment is your judgement. Let the readers judge themselves. We should write only about what happened only in neutral words. MSW has also told in her comment that use "derogatory" etc. is not neutral as well. Please see new Verion 2b which only reports what happened without any judgement.-Nizil (talk) 13:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch:, after reading your comments, I rewrote version 2b again. Is it better or clearer? -Nizil (talk) 15:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: what about his comment on Sahjananda? You wrote that Shiva drank poison but he also said that one can’t become Nilkanth by eating Laddus. Why it’s missing here?— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nizil’s concern. Version 3b and 3c are biased and POVfork. Nizil’s Version 2b version is more neutral. None of the RS label comments of Morari Bapu as disparaged or insulting. This should be posted here.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha88,Nizil, it is good to see you all collaborating to improve the article in an open forum, however, I believe the statement made by Morari Bapu are undue/fringe. The statement he made is not a mainstream view, nor can it corroborated with other independent reliable sources. Additionally, as this is a BLP, we shouldn't place this irrelevant incident on his page. The goal is to enhance this article in an encyclopedic way, not into a tabloid or news gossip. Apollo1203 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo1203: I request you to read WP:FRINGE first. The incident is relevant. Even if you search Swaminarayan V/s Morari Bapu then you will find n number of coverages. VTV Gujarati, BBC, Indian Express are well reputed WP:NEWSORG not fringe publications.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the first sentence of the fringe article, "...the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". I am referring to the statement (his opinion/idea) which departs from the mainstream views. If there are other independent, peer-reviewed, scholar sources which support Morari Bapu's remarks regarding Nilkanth Varni, then it merits to remain on this article. I also want to emphasize my second point, that this is BLP, and the focus should be on contributing in such manner.Apollo1203 (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt you read Nizil’s comment here. He had clearly said we are not here to prove whether this is true or not but to cover what happened and what he remarked. That’s it. This is not history, science or any other related article. Discussion is going in direction of consensus. Please, don’t disrupt it, even Moksha88 had even marked notability of this event. Only point remaining is NPOV, nothing else than it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nizil: 2b is better than before. But is that the view what Swaminarayan leaders challenged? A mention of refusing to do an abishek, and seeking "forgiveness" (which is more than an apology) – both per the UNI source – may clarify it further. Moksha88: 3b and 3c are not okay. As Nizil explains, we shouldn't phrase Bapu's statement as "derogatory" or "disparaged" or something similar (versions 0, 1, 3b, 3c). If you can find a source for the following: "Some leaders and members of the Swaminarayan sect found Bapu's statement as disparaging to their religious sentiments", then we can add that or something similar with appropriate attribution and cites. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what @Apollo1203: is saying, but he’s sourced the wrong wiki policy to support his point. While Morari Bapu’s comments aren’t fringe, they still don’t merit inclusion in the article as they violate WP:BALaSP. Moraribapu has done a lot of positive work throughout his life, and including news about a one-time off-color remark he’s made seems aggressive and unbalanced. This is a recent event and just because it’s the ‘flavor of the day’, we should be weary in trying to place more weight on it than it may merit. Also, @Harshil169:, no need to accuse Apollo of having read/not read something – that’s not constructive.Actionjackson09 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I just said to read Nizil’s comment because he addressed these issues which Appolo raised after 10 days. This is not unconstructive at all. Discussion is going in the direction of consensus, let’s build it once. If there’s any objection then it should be raised at first, not after consensus moved in succeeding phase.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 05:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ms Sarah Welch: Thank you for your comments. I have proposed new version 4 which includes your suggestions to me and @Moksha88:. To others, I kindly suggeat to read Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Avoiding_constant_disputes. We can not drag on forever. Even if we disagree, our goal should be consensus. For now, I would suggest all to focus on how to describe the whole incident with neutral text. Please help to form the consensus for the text. We can decide on its inclusion in the article later.-Nizil (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nizil Shah: I did some CE. Otherwise, it is good and should be posted. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169:, wait. No need to hurry. We are yet to form consensus on text and a separate consensus on its inclusion. I have requested opinions of all involved editors on the proposed text version 4. Let them give their opinion on the text.-Nizil (talk) 06:48, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I represented my opinion. I added some more information from sources, though, two editors will still oppose the inclusion even after long thread.-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the most recent version and have read (and reread) all available coverage on the events. I agree with Nizil that we can debate inclusion later. I also think that until we all agree on what actually happened, we will continue reorganizing the details and not reach consensus. I initially outlined these points.

1. Nilkanth is a name adopted by Swaminarayan upon renouncing the world and lived as a wandering ascetic practising austerities and yoga from the age of 11 to 19 when he was ordained as a Swami. (This is why we aren't using the word 'title' since it's inaccurate.)
2. The sarcasm or derision that was used was that although he was an ascetic with the name Neelkanth, he was “eating ladus” (indulging in rich foods) and thus, actually a hypocrite. The reality, based on multiple sources, is that he engaged in intense austerities for that period of his life which left him emaciated.
3. Thus, using sarcasm to falsely attack or deride his integrity as an ascetic (that he was indulgent, instead of performing austerities) is why I opted to initially use the word, “derogatory,” based on its definition

The question that arose was whether this is original research, and Ms Sarah Welch suggested I find sources to validate this interpretation. I translated the BBC and VTV article with the help of colleagues and verified with Google Translate. Here’s what we identified that supports the points outlined above:

1. VTV article title reads, “Moraribapu slanders monks and saints of Swaminarayan sect over Neelkanthvarni.”
2. BBC article also states, “This was said by keeping Swaminarayan on target and this created resentment among the saints and followers of that sect.”

With the addition of these two non-English sources, I have proposed another version.Moksha88 (talk) 04:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with version5. Nothing new is here, old word disparaged is replaced by derogatory. Version 4 is neutral and balanced while proposed version5 does unpublished synthesis, represents half view and more apologetic to Swaminarayan POV. Derogatory word is nowhere mentioned in the sources. The word is repeatedly added even after objection raised by Ms Sarah. Quoting her "Criticized" or "questioned" is more neutral than using Wikipedia voice to assert Bapu's remarks were "derogatory" or were a "sarcastic dig" or etc.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moksha88:, Nothing is changed from V1 to 3a, 3b, 3c or 5. I have already made my comments that we are not interpreting/judging the Bapu's comments. We just report it neutrally. But you are not evolving your version and proposing same thing again and again. I hope that you give your inputs to improve version 4. So we can form a consensus text. -Nizil (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Version 5 is inappropriate per Nizil. Version 4 is better. Nizil/Others: is there a scholarly source that states the Swaminarayan sampradaya believes or does not believe Sahajanand to be an avatar of Shiva? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the translated text I provided has been ignored in the discussion, and I'm perceived as not offering anything novel. At this point, I would like another user to offer their insights about the neutrality of the proposed version, not whether or not it should be included. @Apollo1203, Treehugger8891, Sacredsea, ThaNDNman224, and Actionjackson09: Moksha88 (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]