Talk:Bochasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha

Removal of duplicated info

This edit summary claims to be removing duplicated info [1]. However what the edit did was remove any mention of vegetarianism from the article. This was not removal of duplicated info, if was removal of any information about vegetarianism. This may have been a mistake so I will assume good faith but we need to be more careful. If I had not have noticed this then this is total elimination of any mention of vegetarianism from the article. Vegetarianism is an important BAPS teaching. I have added just one line back to the article about this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy, thank you for assuming good faith, I appreciate that and I want to clarify that my intention wasn't to remove all information about vegetarianism from the article. I genuinely felt that there was similarly worded info already mentioned under the Ekantik dharma section, specifically the sentence The ideals of dharma range from practicing non-violence to avoiding meat, onions, garlic, and other items in their diet. So the sentences in the vegetarianism section, BAPS advocates the principle of ahimsa (non-violence) and practices vegetarianism. BAPS members are strict lacto-vegetarians that also do not consume onion and garlic as they are believed to have tamasic properties just felt redundant.

Moreover, there was also an issue with WP:OR and WP:V with the last two sentences in that section which said They only eat food cooked by their own members. To help with this BAPs have food courts serving vegetarian food at its mandirs. The cited source [2] doesn't make these claims.

I saw the sentence that you added back in, and I still feel that it's redundant for the reason given above. However, I think if we combine the sentence you added with the existing sentence then it would explicitly use the terms ahimsa and vegetarianism. This would also add clarity to the point without unnecessarily restating it. I've went ahead and made the change and the new sentence reads: The ideals of dharma range from devotees following the principle of ahimsa (non-violence), practicing lacto-vegetarianism, avoiding onions, garlic, and other items in their diet. What do you think? Eucalyptusmint (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi that's alright. From my own understanding the idea that they only eat cooked food by their own members is obsolete, I don't think that is true any longer and it's hard to find any recent info on that. I agree we should remove baps own website, it is an unreliable source, we should cite secondary sources. From some of the academic books I found which give a brief overview they are strict lacto-vegetarian. I agree with merging the content, it only needs to be in one place. I see you have done that, I support your edits. Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh great! Thank you. And can definitely relate that information is hard to find sometimes. I've noticed this while trying to find info on various temple articles that there's not many secondary sources. For that reason, I was under the impression that primary sources can be used (as I did see some cited on those articles), because primary sources aren't by default unreliable per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. So I would think we can use them to cite basic info as long as we use WP:PRIMARYCARE. But agreed, secondary sources are always preferred. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Allegations in the Lead Section and Source Reliability

The current lead section overemphasizes political allegations in a way that deviates from Wikipedia's core principles. The lead should provide a balanced overview rather than highlight disputed claims. Currently, the section relies heavily on New York Times reporting, which, while generally reliable, represents a particular editorial perspective. I suggest moving these allegations to a dedicated section like "Controversies" or "Media coverage" where they can be explored with proper context and balanced sourcing. This would allow the lead to focus on essential, well-established facts about the subject.

Expanding the range of reliable sources would strengthen the article's neutrality. While the NYT is a respected publication, incorporating diverse perspectives from other established outlets would give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the topic. These changes would better align with Wikipedia's guidelines on lead sections (WP:LEAD) and reliable sources (WP:RS), while maintaining the article's informative value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ram112313 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

In this case I have to agree. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This comment is completely generated using AI and is full of hallucinations. Please write your views in your own words in order to explain how the content is not neutral. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't know about AI (I don't need it; it uses info I have written at Wikipedia), but one sentence, without context or explanation, in the lead, without a corresponding sentence in the body, is not in line with WP:LEAD. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's now in body. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's in the body why should a singular sentence be on the lead section? It doesn't make sense since, even in the article additions you created, it barely mentions being tied to BJP. Ram112313 (talk) 08:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Because lead is a summary of the body. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how so? You cannot use AI websites like GPTZero like you previously mentioned to say I used AI. I didn't use AI. I simply used grammarly as my singular writing tool to edit. Ram112313 (talk) 05:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Grammarly itself uses LLM now to "correct" the prose. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm getting your point about AI... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this even relevant to the talk about having a singular allegation on the lead section of an article? Isn't it better to have it under a subsection or the current section? Ram112313 (talk) 08:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The content is mentioned in the body, therefore the inclusion in lead is warranted given how it is widely mentioned. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's widely mentioned on articles regarding the opening of Akshardham USA. None of the articles are directly created to talk about how BAPS is actually linked to the BJP. They are also allegations as seen within the articles with little to no evidence or context provided. It seems widely NPOV to have a singular sentence about the organization's alleged link to the BJP in the lead section without much information. Ram112313 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

All the sources are discussing BAPS in this context not the temple, do not misrepresent them. What you are trying to do is WP:CENSOR - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What you just said is incorrect as 3/4 articles linked in the lead section are about the lawsuit regarding Swaminarayan Akshardham in which it is mentioned that baps is allegedly linked to the BJP. It's also NPOV to mention it in the lead despite little to no relevance in the overall article. Ram112313 (talk) 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

This response is self contradictory, you agree that BAPS has been linked to BJP by the sources then you deny that it has any relevance to this article which is about BAPS! - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No you misunderstand. I am saying it is not maintaining a neutral point of view by mentioning a single out of place line in the lead section of the article. If news media has alleged that BAPS is linked to the BJP then it is sufficiently mentioned in the body with the edits you have made. There is no reason to have a single out of place line in the lead section. Ram112313 (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement is neutrally worded, mentioned in the body with sufficient number of sources therefore WP:DUE in the lead. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

As stated "Watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.". Having a single sentence about allegations to BAPS hardly warrants it being part of the lead section. Especially if it has already been barely mentioned in the body. Ram112313 (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It also seems inconsistent, especially when considering past BAPS events like the inauguration of Akshardham in New Delhi, where prominent figures such as APJ Abdul Kalam, the former President of India, and LK Advani, a senior political leader, were invited. Neither was directly associated with the BJP at the time. BAPS has historically extended invitations to individuals across diverse political affiliations, emphasizing unity, cultural celebration, and the significance of the occasion rather than partisan considerations. APJ Abdul Kalam had also written a book on Pramukh Swami. Considering these things it seems NPOV to just say that BAPS is alleged to have a strong connection with the BJP in the lead section. Ram112313 (talk) 08:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No it uses natural language processing and machine learning to correct prose. At most it's a gratified grammar corrector. Grammarly AI is using LLM's there's a difference. Anyways the point is the how you are creating an imbalance in the article by putting one section in the lead without anything else to support it. Ram112313 (talk) 08:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Explain

@Ram112313: - Can you explain your edits? This text appears to be hallucinated using AI. This edit summary was entirely misleading , there is a public perception linking sect to the violence which is what the article states, you cannot remove that statement by saying pramukh Swami has nothing do with violence when she wasn't even talking about him!- Ratnahastin (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The article YOU referenced states multiple times how Pramukh Swami did not condone the violence and Pramukh Swami (the guru of the sect) being linked to the BJP is flimsy.

"The sect has conspicuously avoided making any statements about Gujarat that would implicate the party in power. Pramukh Swami has publicly condemned the violence and urged peace and reconciliation. Devotees were urged to aid anyone in distress; prayers for all the victims were offered; an interfaith memorial ceremony was held, including Muslim and Christian leaders, on the premises of the temple complex in Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat. Celebration of an important festival was canceled in order to offer prayers for the victims at 9,000 BAPS centers around the world. Pramukh Swami met with local political and social leaders to discuss how to avoid future violence. 37 Nonetheless, the sect did not condemn the actions of police and government. Its evenhanded deploring of the plight of “victims” is all too evenhanded. Many small and relatively powerless NGOs also remained publicly neutral. The admirable Self-Employed Women’s Organization incurred widespread criticism for its failure to denounce Modi and for its leadership’s continued willingness to work with him. This choice, however, can be explained by the extreme vulnerability of the organization and its members, who would be at risk of violence had their leadership condemned the violence. It is not clear that the neutrality of BAPS can be similarly justified, given its enormous wealth and social influence"

Another excerpt:

The public perception that links Pramukh Swami with communal tensions has a flimsy basis. On the other hand, the high visibility of leading BJP politicians’ connections with the sect—both L. K. Advani and Narendra Modi appear as prominent guests at the sect’s public events, and members of the group play a prominent role in BJP fundraising—continues to arouse concern among people eager to stop communal violence. 34 Swaminarayan sadhus say that they are a purely religious organization and have no political views: the only link with BJP politicians is that “we are Hindus and they are Hindus, so we are linked together.”35 Politicians come to the festivals because they want Pramukh Swami’s blessing. Interviewed in 1999 by scholar Raymond Brady Williams, Pramukh Swami stated:“We don’t have any political ties with them but only relations with respect to religion and spirituality."

"Other, closer connections to the Hindu right are widely suspected but difficult to find." Ram112313 (talk) 01:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You should stop nitpicking. What Pramukh Swami says or if he has a connection to is irrelevant when the sect itself has been connected to the violence and BJP. I never added anything about the guru anyway it is about the sect. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, the fact that Pramukh Swami connection is "irrelevant" seems wrong considering he was the previous head of the sect and was the main guru during the global expansion period of it. He is also mentioned heavily in the article and the source for the two differing arguments whether the sect is linked to the BJP. Having the edited paragraph gives a more neutral view which talks about the source more clearly. Ram112313 (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

You should follow what the source states and it is clear about public perception of sect's connection to BJP and violence. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no nitpicking. The overall argument in the source is about how there might be a link to the BJP, but the sect itself has maintained neutrality and finding a link between the BJP and BAPS is hard and flimsy. What you are doing is pushing a non-neutral point of view by skewing the overall source and the details within it. Ram112313 (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The sources has mentioned the "public perception" of BAPS's connection to BJP/violence, you cannot arbitrarily remove it and put AI generated hallucination in its place. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no AI generated hallucination. GPTZero is not even accurate. I also did mention of how the author of the source mentions there might be a public perception of a connection to the BJP, but a hard link cannot be found and the basis of it is flimsy. That last part is extremely important in the context of the article. You cannot just not include that portion. Ram112313 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)