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 From my own understanding the idea that they only eat cooked food by their own members is obsolete, I don't think that is true any longer and it's hard to find any recent info on that.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)

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)