Talk:Barsana Dham

Potential sources for a rewrite
In order to rewrite this article to remove fluff and unneeded POV, I have found one source that could be seen as neutral, a site by "The Pluralism Project" at Harvard University. I will look for more objective (and credible) sites such as this one. I do not believe that the news stories concerning contraversy should be used to write about the temple proper. For the temple's history, these news stories are necessary to establish the chronology of historical facts (when they are verifiable and reliable). I hope that this is the type of source that can benefit a rewrite of this article and help remove much of the fluff and unneeded POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review, Barsana Dham Hindu Temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

H.D swami prakashanand case.
Personally, i do not see ANY relevance with his case with Barsana Dham. These are TWO seperate things, so if you guys want to make your own article about H.D swami prakashanand do so otherwise, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.143.84 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply It is kind of a moot point now; please see Articles for deletion/Swami Prakashanand Saraswati. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The section on Prakashanand Saraswati and the "2007 Accusations and 2011 Trial" should be moved to the article on Prakashanand Saraswati. The article is about the temple, not its founder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.240.67 (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

intro

 * Removed "the headquarters of Jagadguru Kripalu Parishat (JKP) in the Western world" as this is not established by reliable resources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)